NAPIER, Sir Charles (1786-1860), British admiral, was the second son of Captain the Hon. Charles Napier, R.N., and grandson of Francis, fifth Lord Napier, and thus cousin to the three famous Napiers, Sir Charles, Sir George, and Sir William, and was born at Merchiston Hall, near Falkirk, on March 6, 1786. He became a midshipman in 1800, was promoted lieutenant in 1805 and commander in 1807, and distinguished himself in the West Indies, where he fought his famous action with three French ships of the line, and took the “Hautpoult,” seventy-four guns, into which the admiral promoted him captain. On his return to England his rank was confirmed, but he was put on half-pay. He spent some time at the university of Edinburgh, and then went to Portugal to visit his cousins in Wellington’s army. In 1811 he served in the Mediterranean, and in 1813 on the coast of America and in the expedition up the Potomac. The first years of his leisure he spent in Italy and in Paris, but speculated so much in a steamboat enterprise that by 1829 he was quite ruined. In that year he was appointed to the “Galatea,” forty-two, and was at the Azores when they were held by the Count de Villa Flor for the queen of Portugal. He so much impressed the constitutional leaders that they begged him to take command of the fleet, which offer he accepted in February 1833. With it he destroyed the Miguelite fleet off Cape St Vincent on July 5, and on the demand of France was struck off the English navy list. Continuing his Portuguese services, he commanded the land forces in the successful defence of Lisbon in 1834, when he was made Grand Commander of the Tower and Sword, and Count Cape St Vincent in the peerage of Portugal. On his return to England he was restored to his former rank in the navy in 1836, and received command of the “Powerful,” eighty-four, in 1838. When troubles broke out in Syria he was appointed second in command, and distinguished himself by leading the storming column at Sidon on September 26, 1840, and by other services, for which he was made a K.C.B. He went on half-pay in 1841, and was in 1842 elected M.P. for Marylebone in the Liberal interest, but lost his seat in 1846. He was promoted rear-admiral the same year, and commanded the Channel fleet from 1846 to 1848. On the outbreak of the Russian War he received the command of the fleet destined to act in the Baltic, and hoisted his flag in February 1854. He refused to attack Cronstadt, and a great outcry was raised against him for not obeying the orders of the Admiralty and attempting to storm the key of St Petersburg; but his inaction has been thoroughly justified by posterity. On his return in December 1854 he was not again offered a command. He was elected M.P. for Southwark in February 1855, and maintained his seat, though broken in health, until his death on November 6, 1860.

See Major-General E. Napier’s Life and Correspondence of Admiral Sir Charles Napier, K.C.B., 2 vols., London, 1862; Napier’s own War in Syria, 2 vols., 1842; The Navy, its past and present state, in a series of letters, edited by Sir W. F. P. Napier, 1851; and The History of the Baltic Campaign of 1854, from documents and other materials furnished l·y Vice-Admiral Sir C. Napier, K.C.B., 1857. See also The Life and Exploits of Commodore Napier, 1841; and Life of Vice-Admiral Sir C. Napier, 1854.

NAPIER, Sir Charles James (1782-1853), the acknowledged hero of a family of heroes, was born at Whitehall, London, in 1782, and was the eldest son of Colonel George Napier, of the Guards (a younger son of the fifth Lord Napier), and of his -wife Lady Sarah Lennox—the Lady Sarah who had charmed King George III. After the custom of those times Charles Napier had been gazetted an ensign in the 33d regiment in 1794, and in 1797 his father secured for him the appointment of aide-de-camp to Sir James Duff, the general commanding the Limerick district. Longing for more active service, Napier obtained a commission as lieutenant in Manningham’s rifles in 1800. This newly formed corps was designed to supply a body of light troops for the English army fit to cope with the French voltigeurs and tirailleurs, and was specially trained at first under the eye of Colonel Manningham, and then in the famous camp at Shorncliffe, under the immediate supervision of Sir John Moore. Moore speedily perceived the military qualities of the Napiers, and inspired the three elder brothers—Charles, George, and William—with an enthusiasm which lasted all their lives; but, though happy in his general, Charles Napier quarrelled bitterly with William Stewart, the lieutenant-colonel, and in 1803 left the regiment to accompany General Fox to Ireland as aide-de-camp. The great influence of his uncle, the duke of Richmond, procured him in 1804 a captaincy in the staff corps, and in the beginning of 1806 a majority in the Cape regiment. On his way to the Cape, however, he exchanged into the 50th regiment, with which he served in the short Danish campaign under Lord Cathcart in 1807. Shortly after his return from Denmark the 50th was ordered to Portugal, and shared all the glories of the famous retreat to Corunna. At the battle of Corunna, one of the last sights of Sir John Moore before he was struck was the advance of his own old regiment under the command of Charles Napier and Edward Stanhope, and almost his last words were “Well done, my majors !” Being badly supported from the right, the 50th were almost entirely cut to pieces, and both the majors left for dead upon the field. Napier’s life was saved by a French drummer named Guibert, who brought him safely to the headquarters of Marshal Soult. Soult treated him with the greatest kindness, and he was allowed by Ney to return to England to his “old blind mother” instead of being interned. He had not been long in England when he heard that his exchange had been arranged, and, volunteering for the Peninsula, he joined the light division before Ciudad Rodrigo. As a volunteer he served in the actions on the Coa, and again at Busaco, where he was badly wounded in the face. He was ordered to England, but refused to go, and was present with the light division in all the actions λvhich took place during Wellington’s pursuit of Masséna. His services were rewarded soon after by the lieutenantcolonelcy of the 102d regiment, which had been entirely demoralized at Botany Bay, and when he joined it at Guernsey was one of the worst regiments in the service; when he left it in 1813 it was one of the best. He accompanied it in June 1812 from Guernsey to Bermuda, where he wrought a wonderful change in the spirit both of officers and men. By treating his men as friends he won their love and admiration, and became in a peculiar degree the hero of the British soldiers. In September 1813 he exchanged back into the 50th regiment, and in December 1814, believing all chance of active service to be at an end, retired on half-pay. He was gazetted one of the first C.B.’s on the extension of the order in 1814, and was present as a volunteer at the capture of Cambray, though he just missed the great battle of Waterloo. Though an officer of some experience and more than thirty years of age, he now joined the military college at Farnham, and completed his military education. In 1819 he was appointed inspecting field officer at Corfu. From Corfu he was moved in 1822 to Cephalonia, where he remained for eight years as governor and military resident. What he did there he has described in a book of his own, and how he loved the place is shown by his wish to the very end of his life to return and die there. He was the model of a despotic colonial governor, and showed all the qualities of a benevolent despot. He made good roads and founded great institutions, but everything must be done by him, and he showed himself averse to interference whether from the lord high commissioner of the Ionian Islands or from the inhabitants of his own little colony. An interesting episode in his command was his communication with Lord Byron when he touched at Cephalonia on his way to his death at Missolonghi, and the insurrection of the Greeks, who would have called him to be their commander-in-chief had the Greek committee in London encouraged his pretensions. But at last his struggle with the authorities of the colonies grew to such a pitch that in 1830 he was obliged to leave Cephalonia. He retired to Normandy, where he published his work on the colonies, and also an historical romance on William the Conqueror. In 1834 he refused the governorship of Australia, still hoping for military employment. In 1837 he was promoted major-general with his brother George, and in 1838 was made a K.C.B.; but he was to wait till 1839 before he received an offer of employment. In that year he was made commanding officer in the northern district, and found his command no sinecure, owing to the turbulent state of the Chartists in the towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire. His behaviour during the tenure of his command is described by William Napier in his life of his brother, and his inability to hold a command which did not carry supreme authority is plainly portrayed. In 1841, to the content of the Government, he resigned his command and went to India. He was stationed at Poona, and in September 1842, when troubles were expected there, was ordered to Sind.

His command in Sind from 1842 till August 1847 is the period of his life during which, according to his brother, he made good his title to fame, but his acts, more especially at first, have been most severely criticized. In fact there can be little doubt that from the moment he landed in the province he determined to conquer the ameers, and to seek the first opportunity of doing so. He was to be accompanied by Colonel Outram, who had been resident in Sind during the Afghan war, and who felt a great admiration for him, but who had also a warm affection for the ameers, and believed that he could put off the day of their destruction. On February 17, 1843, while Outram was still absent engaged in negotiation, Napier attacked the Baluch army 30,000 strong with but 2800 men. With these 2800 men, including the 22d regiment, which would do anything for him, he succeeded in winning the victory of Meanee. It was a battle of the olden type, in which generals had to fight like privates. Sir Charles was in his element, and himself engaged in the fray. In the March following he finally destroyed the army of the ameers at the battle of Hyderabad. His success was received with enthusiasm both by the governor-general, Lord Ellenborough, and by the English people, and he was at once made a G.C.B. The conqueror of Sind now had an opportunity to prove his administrative powers, and proceeded to apply the same material means of civilization to Sind which had formerly been successful in Cephalonia. Whether or not the conquest of Sind at that particular period can be justified, there can be no doubt that Charles Napier was the best administrator who could be found for the province when conquered. Sind, when it came under English rule, was in a state of utter anarchy, for the Baluches had formed a military government not unlike that of the Mamelukes in Egypt, which had been extremely tyrannical to the native population. This native population was particularly protected by Sir Charles Napier, who completed the work of the destruction of the Baluch supremacy which he had commenced with the victory of Meanee. The labour of administration was rendered more difficult by the necessity of repressing the hill tribes, which had been encouraged to acts of laλvlessness by the licence which followed the Afghan war. The later years of his administration were made very stormy by the attacks on the policy of the conquest which had been made in England. He left Sind, after quarrelling with every authority of the presidency of Bombay, and nearly every authority of the whole of India, in August 1847, and received a perfect ovation on his return from all the hero-worshippers of the Napiers, of whom there were many in England. His short stay in England was occupied with incessant struggles with the directors of the East India Company; but, however much the directors hated him, it was not long before they had to beseech him in humble terms to become their commander-in-chief. The news of the indecisive victory of Chillianwalla created a panic in England, and the East India Company was obliged by the force of public opinion to summon the greatest general to take the command of its armies. Sir Charles started almost at a moment’s notice, but on reaching India found that the victory of Gujrat had been won and the Sikh λvar was over. No taint of envy was in his nature, and he rejoiced that he had not to supersede Lord Gough in the moment of defeat. His restless and imperious spirit was met by one equally imperious in the governor-general, Lord Dalhousie. From the very beginning of his command the governor-general and the commander-in-chief disagreed, and in April 1850 Sir Charles was reprimanded on some trifling point of discipline. The reprimand was reiterated by the duke of Wellington, and in December 1850 Napier once more left for England. His constitution was undermined by the Indian climate, and especially by his fatiguing command in Sind, and on August 29, 1853, he died at Portsmouth.

Charles James Napier, recognized by his brothers as the greatest representative of the Napiers, though without the literary genius of his brother William, had all the restless energy which distinguished the whole family, —the same impatience of command and contradiction, the same power of inspiring the people with a reverential enthusiasm which impressed even the dullest. At Meanee he showed himself to be a gallant general; but he was also a great soldier.

Possibly he had not the coolness which forms a Wellington, but he had the power of inspiring his soldiers with an enthusiastic love and admiration which Wellington could never inspire. Besides being a great soldier he was a very great administrator, and both in Cephalonia and in Sind proved what work a man never fatigued and never afraid of responsibility could do. The most discussed question in his life is the conquest of Sind. There can be no doubt that he hurried on that conquest. There can be no doubt that the conquest was disapproved by statesmen in England. Mr Gladstone’s own testimony is to the effect that the conquest of Sind “was disapproved unanimously by the cabinet of Sir Robert Peel, of which I can speak, as I had just entered it at that time. But the ministry were powerless inasmuch as the mischief of retaining was less than the mischief of abandoning it, and it remains an accomplished fact” {Contemporary Review, November 1876). But that the mischief was not greater was due to Sir Charles’s administrative power. Many men have been gallant generals, great soldiers, and even great administrators, but no man ot the 19th century was a hero as well, and it is the heroic side of his character which it is most difficult to analyse, and most easy to perceive. It appears all through Sir William Napier’s life of his brother, but it is most clearly and trenchantly brought out in a letter of Carlyle to the biographer. “The fine and noble qualities of the man are very recognizable to me: his subtle piercing intellect turned all to the practical, giving him just insight into men and into things; his inexhaustible adroit contrivances, his fiery valour, sharp promptitude to seize the good moment that will not return. A lynx-eyed fiery man, with the spirit of an old knight in him, more of a hero than any modern I have seen for a long time.”

The chief authority for Sir Charles Napier’s life is his Life and Opinions, by iιis brother, 1837; consult also MacCall, Career and Character of C. J. Napier, 1857; and M*Dougall, General Sir C. J. Napier, Conqueror and Governor of Scinde, 18G0. His own works are Memoir of the Roads of Cephalonia, 1825; The Colonies, 1833; Colonization, 1835; Remarks on Military Laic and the Punishment of Flogging, 1837; A Letter on the Defence of England by Corps of Volunteers and Militia, 1852; A Letter to the Right Honourable Sir J. C. Hobhouse on the Baggage of the Indian Army, 1849; Defects, Civil and Military, of the Indian Government, 1853; and William the Conqueror, a Historical Romance, edited by Sir W. Napier, 1858. On Sind, consult primarily Sir W. Napier, The Conquest cf Scinde, 1845; The Administration of Scinde, 1851; Compilation of General Orders issued by Sir C. Napier, 1850; and Outram, The Conquest of Scinde, a Commentary, 1840. For his command-in-chief, and the controversy about his resignation, consult J. Mawson, Records of the Indian Command of General Sir C. J. Napier, Calcutta, 1851; Minutes on the Resignation of the late General Sir C. Napier, by Field-Marshal the Duke of Wellington, <fcc., 1854; Comments by Sir W. Napier on a Memorandum of the Duke Of Wellington, 1854; and Sir William Napier, General Sir C. Napier and the Directors of the East India Company, '1857. (H. Μ. S.)

NAPIER, John (1550-1617), the inventor of logarithms, was born at Merchiston near Edinburgh in 1550, and was the eighth Napier of Merchiston. The first Napier of Merchiston, “Alexander Napare,” acquired the Merchiston estate before the year 1438, from James I. of Scotland. He was provost of Edinburgh in 1437, and was otherwise distinguished. His eldest son Alexander, who succeeded him in 1454, was provost of Edinburgh in 1455, 1457, and 1469; he was knighted and held various important court offices under successive monarchs; at the time of his death in 1473 he was master of the household to James III. His son, John Napier of Rusky, the third of Merchiston, belonged to the royal household in the lifetime of his father. He also was provost of Edinburgh at various times, and it is a remarkable instance of the esteem in which the lairds of Merchiston were held that three of them in immediate lineal succession repeatedly filled so important an office during perhaps the most memorable period in the history of the city. He married a great-granddaughter of Duncan, eighth earl of Levenax (or Lennox), and besides this relationship by marriage the Napiers claimed a lineal male cadency from the ancient family of Levenax. His eldest son, Archibald Napier of Edinbellie, the fourth of Merchiston, belonged to the household of James IV. He fought at Flodden and escaped with his life, but his eldest son Alexander (fifth of Merchiston) was killed. Alexander’s eldest son (Alexander, sixth of Merchiston) was born in 1513, and fell at the battle of Pinkie in 1547. His eldest son was Archibald, seventh of Merchiston, and the father of John Napier, the subject of this article.

In 1549 Archibald Napier, at the early age of about fifteen, married Janet, daughter of Francis Bothwell, and in the following year John Napier was born. In the criminal court of Scotland, the earl of Argyll, hereditary justice-general of the kingdom, sometimes presided in person, but more frequently he delegated his functions; and it appears that in 1561 Archibald Napier was appointed one of the justice-deputes. In the register of the court, extending over 1563 and 1564, the justice-deputes named are “Archibald Naper of Merchistoune, Alexander Bannatyne, burgess of Edinburgh, James Stirling of Keir, and Mr Thomas Craig.” About 1565 he was knighted at the same time as James Stirling, his colleague, whose daughter John Napier subsequently married. In 1582 Sir Archibald was appointed master of the mint in Scotland, with the sole charge of superintending the mines and minerals within the realm, and this office he held till his death in 1608. His first wife died in 1563, and in 1572 he married a cousin, Elizabeth Mowbray, by whom he had three sons, the eldest of whom was named Alexander.; and calling Donald into his presence commanded him, in regard to 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 servant, which discourse is confirmed by evidences of mine, wherein we are called Lennox alias Napier.” Sir Archibald adds that this is “the origin of our name, as, by tradition from father to son, we have generally and without any doubt received the same.” This written statement of the legend was occasioned by the following circumstance. Robert Napier, a cousin of John Napier, had amassed riches abroad as a merchant; he was created a baronet in 1612, and in order to put his genealogy formally on record in the heralds’ books, he applied for an authentic certificate to Sir Archibald, afterwards Lord Napier, who resided at Merchiston, as the head of the family; and Sir Archibald in reply wrote out in his own hand the document from which the preceding extract has been made. ]

As stated above, John Napier was born in 1550, the year in which the Reformation in Scotland may be said to have commenced. In 1563, the year in which his mother died, he matriculated at St Salvator’s College, St Andrews. He early became a Protestant champion, and the one solitary anecdote of his youth that is known to exist occurs in his address “to the Godly and Christian reader” prefixed to his Plaine Discovery. He writes :—

“In my tender yeares, and barneage in Sanct-Androis at the Schooles, having, on the one parte, contracted a loving familiaritie with a certaine Gentleman, &c. a Papist; And on the other part, being attentive to the sermons of that worthie man of God, Maister Christopher Goodman, teaching upon the Apocalyps, I was so mooved in admiration, against the blindnes 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 whoredome, that not onely bursted I out in continual reasoning against my said familiar, but also from thenceforth, I determined with my seife (by the assistance of Gods 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.”

The names of nearly all Napier’s classfellows can be traced as becoming 'determinantes in 1566 and masters of arts in 1568; but his own name does not appear in the lists. The necessary inference is that his stay at the university was short, and that only the groundwork of his education was laid there. Although there is no direct evidence of the fact, there can be no doubt that he left St Andrews to complete his education on the Continent, and that he probably studied at the university of Paris, and visited Italy and Germany. He did not, however, as has been supposed, spend the best years of his manhood abroad, for he was certainly at home in 1571, when, being just of age, the preliminaries of his marriage were arranged at Merchiston; and for many years after that event he took an earnest interest in the affairs of the church, the most engrossing element in the politics of the time.

In 1572 John Napier married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir James Stirling of Keir, mentioned above. This marriage took place almost immediately after his father’s second marriage. About the end of the year 1579 John Napier’s wife died, leaving him one son, Archibald, the first Lord Napier, and one daughter, Jane. A few years afterwards he married again, the name of his second wife being Agnes Chisholme, and by her he had ten children, five sons and five daughters.

On the 17th of October 1593 a convention of delegates was held at Edinburgh at which a committee was appointed to follow the king and lay before him in a personal interview certain instructions relating to the punishment of the rebellious Popish earls and the safety of the church. This committee consisted of six members, two barons, two ministers, and two burgesses—the two barons selected being John Napier of Merchiston and James Maxwell of Calderwood. The delegates found the king at Jedburgh, and the mission, which was a dangerous one, was successfully accomplished. Shortly afterwards another convention was held at Edinburgh, and it was resolved that the delegates sent to Jedburgh should again meet the king at Linlithgow and repeat their former instructions. This was done accordingly, the number of members of the committee being, however, doubled. These interviews took place in October 1593, and on the 29th of the following January Napier wrote to the king the letter which forms the dedication of the Plaine Discovery.

The full title of this first work of Napier’s is given below. It was written in English instead of Latin in order that “hereby the simple of this Hand may be instructed”; and the author states that he “was constrained of compassion, leaving the Latine, to haste out in English this present worke.” He apologizes also for the language and his own mode of expression in the following sentences:—

“Whatsoever therfore through hast, is here rudely and in base language set downe, I doubt not to be pardoned thereof by all good men, who, considering the necessitie of this time, will esteem it more meete to make hast to prevent the rising againe of Antichristian darknes within this Hand, then to prolong the time in painting of language”; and “I graunt indeede, and am sure, that in the style of wordes and utterance of language, we shall greatlie differ, for therein I do judge my seife inferiour to all men: so that scarcely in these high matters could I with long deliberation finde wordes to expresse my minde.”

It is not to be supposed that Napier’s Plaine Discovery was in any respect due to a visionary cloud passing over his mind, or to any temporary infatuation; on the contrary, it is a serious and laborious work, to which he had devoted years of care and thought, and which is closely connected with the history of the times. In one sense it may be said to stand to theological literature in Scotland in something of the same position as that occupied by the Canon Mirificus with respect to the scientific literature, for it is the first published original work relating to theological interpretation, and is quite without a predecessor in its own field. In judging of the book, the circumstances of the time and the state of the country have to be taken into account. Napier lived in the very midst of fiercely contending religious factions, and his home was situated in a district which was the scene of constant wars and disturbances; there was but little theological teaching of any kind, and the work related to what were then the leading political and religious questions of the day.

After the publication of the Plaine Discovery, Napier seems to have occupied himself with the invention of secret instruments of war, for in the Bacon collection at Lambeth Palace there is a document, dated June 7, 1596, and signed by Napier, giving a list of his inventions for the defence of the country against the anticipated invasion by Philip of Spain. The document is entitled “Secrett Inventionis, proffitabill and necessary in theis dayes for defence of this Hand, and withstanding of strangers, enemies of God’s truth and religion,” and the inventions consist of (1) a mirror for burning the enemies’ ships at any distance, (2) a piece of artillery destroying everything round an arc of a circle, and (3) a round metal chariot, so constructed that its occupants could move it rapidly and easily, while firing out through small holes in it. It has been asserted (by Sir Thomas Urquhart) that the piece of artillery was actually tried upon a plain in Scotland with complete success, a number of sheep and cattle being destroyed.

In 1614 appeared the work which in the history of British science can be placed as second only to Newton’s Principia. The full title is as follows :— Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis descriptio, E jusque usus, in utraque T∖igonoπιetria; ut etiam in omni Logistica Mathematica, Amplissimi, Facillimi, & expeditissimi explicatio. Author e ac Inventore Ioanne Neper o, Barone Merchistonii, Ac., Scoto. Edinburgi, ex ofiicinâ Andreae Hart Bibliopolae, CID. DC. XIV. This is printed on an ornamental titlepage. The work is a small-sized quarto, containing fiftyseven pages of explanatory matter and ninety pages of tables.

The nature of logarithms is explained by reference to the motion of points in a straight line, and the principle upon which they are based is that of the correspondence of a geometrical and an arithmetical series of numbers. The table gives the logarithms of sines for every minute to seven figures; it is arranged semi-quadrantally, so that the differentiae, which are the differences of the two logarithms in the same line, are the logarithms of the tangents. Napier’s logarithms are not the logarithms now termed Napierian, that is to say, logarithms to the base e where e = 2*7182818 . . .; but they are closely related to this system, the connexion being expressed by the equation —

log Nap. τι = 10,000,000 log/ (10,000,000) - 10,000,000 log, n; ∕10 7 ∖

or log Nap. n = 10 7 log, ( — ) .

A translation of the Canon Mirificus into English was made by Edward Wright, and published after his death by his son Samuel Wright, at London, in 1618, under the title A Description of the admirable Table of Logarithmes. Edward Wright, who was a fellow of Caius College, Cambridge, occupies a conspicuous place in the history of navigation. In 1599 he published Certaine errors in Navigation detected and corrected, and he was the author of other works; to him also is chiefly due the invention of the method known as Mercator’s sailing. He at once saw the value of logarithms as an aid to navigation, and lost no time in preparing a translation, which he submitted to Napier himself. The preface to Wright’s edition consists of a translation of the preface to the Canon Mirificus, together with the addition of the following sentences written by Napier himself:—“But now some of our Countreymen in this Island well affected to these studies, and the more publique good, procured a most learned Mathematician to translate the same into our vulgar English tongue, whe after he had finished it, sent the Coppy of it to me, to bee scene and considered on by myselfe. I having most willingly and gladly done the same, finde it to bee most exact and precisely conformable to my minde and the originali. 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.”

There is a short “preface to the reader” by Briggs, and a description of a triangular diagram invented by Wright for finding the proportional parts. The table is printed to one figure less than in the Canon Mirificus. Edward Wright died in 1615, and his son in the preface states that his father “gave much commendation of this work (and often in my hearing) as of very great use for mariners”; and with respect to the translation he says that “shortly after he had it returned out of Scotland, it pleased God to call him away afore he could publish it.”

In 1617 Napier published, his Rabdologia, a duodecimo of one hundred and fifty-four pages; there is prefixed to it as preface a dedicatory epistle to the high chancellor of Scotland. The method which Napier terms “Rabdologia” consists in the use of certain numerating rods for the performance of multiplications and divisions. These rods, which were commonly called “Napier’s bones,” will be described further on. The second method, which he calls the “Promptuarium Multiplicationis” on account of its being the most expeditious of all for the performance of multiplications, involves the use of a number of lamellae or little plates of metal disposed in a box. In an appendix of forty-one pages he gives his third method, “local arithmetic,” which is performed on a chess-board, and depends, in principle, on the expression of numbers in the scale of radix 2. In the Rabdologia he gives the chronological order of his inventions. He speaks of the canon of logarithms as “a me longo tempore elaboratum.” The other three methods he devised for the sake of those who would prefer to work with natural numbers; and he mentions that the promptuary was his latest invention. In the preface to the appendix containing the local arithmetic he states that, while devoting all his leisure to the invention of these abbreviations of calculation, and to examining by what methods the toil of calculation might be removed, in addition to the logarithms, rabdologia, and promptuary, he had hit upon a certain tabular arithmetic, whereby the more troublesome operations of common arithmetic are performed on an abacus or chess-board, and which may be regarded as an amusement rather than a labour, for, by means of it, addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and even the extraction of roots are accomplished simply by the motion of counters. He adds that he has appended it to the Rabdologia, in addition to the promptuary, because he did not wish to bury it in silence, nor to publish so small a matter by itself. With respect to the calculating rods, Napier mentions in the dedication that they had already found so much favour as to be almost in common use, and even to have been carried to foreign countries; and that he has been advised to publish his little work relating to their mechanism and use, lest they should be put forth in some one else’s name.

John Napier died on April 4, 1617, the same year as that in which the Rabdologia was published, so that his death must have taken place very soon after its appearance. His will, which is extant, was signed on the fourth day before his death. No particulars are known of his last illness, but it seems likely that death came upon him rather suddenly at last. In both the Canon Mirificus and the Rabdologia, however, he makes reference to his ill-health. In the dedication of the former he refers to himself as “mihi jam morbis penè confecto,” and in the “Admonitio” at the end he speaks of his “infirma valetudo ”; while in the latter he says he has been obliged to leave the calculation of the new canon of logarithms to others “ob infirmam corporis nostri valetudinem.”

It is usually stated that John Napier was buried in St Giles’s church, Edinburgh, and there can be no doubt that some of the family of Napier were buried there in the 16th or 17 th century, but the late Professor Wallace, in a paper read before the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1832, and quoted by Mr Mark Napier on pp. 425-427 of his Memoirs of John Napier of Merchiston, gives evidence for believing that he was buried in St Cuthbert’s church. Professor Wallace’s words are—

“My authority for this belief is unquestionable. It is a Treatise on Trigonometry, by a Scotsman, James Hume of Godscroft, Berwickshire, a place still in possession of the family of Hum» 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 his treatise (page 116) Hume says, speaking of logarithms, ‘ L’inuenteur estoit un Seigneur de grande condition, et duquel la postérité est aujourd’huy en possession de grandes dignitéz dans le royaume, qùi estant sur Page, et grandement trauaillé des gouttes ne pouvait faire autre chose que de s’adonner aux sciences, et principalment aux mathématiques et à la logistique, à quoy il se plaisoit infiniment, et auec estrange peine, a construict ses Tables des Logarymes, imprimées à Edinbourg en l’an 1614. ... Il mourut l’an 1616, et fut enterré hors la Porte Occidentale d’Edinbourg, dans l’Eglise de Sainct Cudbert. ’”

There can be no doubt that Napier’s devotion to mathematics was not due to old age and the gout, and that he died in 1617 and not in 1616; still these sentences were written within eighteen years of Napier’s death, and their author seems to have had some special sources of information. Additional probability is given to Hume’s assertion by the fact that Merchiston is situated in St Cuthbert’s parish. It is nowhere else recorded that Napier suffered from the gout.

The Canon Mirificus contains only an explanation of the use of the logarithms without any account of the manner in which the canon was constructed. In an “Admonitio” on the seventh page he states that, although in that place the mode of construction should be explained, he proceeds at once to the use of the logarithms, ζ ‘ ut praelibatis prius usu, et rei utilitate, caetera aut magis placeant posthac edenda, aut minus saltem displiceant silentio sepulta.” He awaits therefore the judgment and censure of the learned “priusquam caetera in lucem temerè prolata lividorum detrectationi exponantur”; and in an “Admonitio” on the last page of the book he states that he will publish the mode of construction of the canon “si huius inventi usum eruditis gratum fore intellexero.”

Napier, as we have seen, died in 1617, immediately after the appearance of the Rabdologia, and before he had published the promised account of the method of construction of the canon. This work was, however, issued by Robert Napier, his second son by his second marriage, in 1619. The Constructio consists of a preface of two pages, followed by sixty-seven pages of text. In the preface Robert Napier says that he has been assured from undoubted authority that the new invention is much thought of by the ablest mathematicians, and that nothing would delight them more than the publication of the mode of construction of the canon. He therefore issues the work to satisfy their desires, although, he states, it is manifest that it would have seen the light in a far more perfect state if his father could have put the finishing touches to it; and he mentions that, in the opinion of the best judges, his father possessed, among other most excellent gifts, in the highest degree the power of explaining the most difficult matters by a certain and easy method in the fewest possible words.

It is important to notice that in the Constructio logarithms are called artificial numbers; and Robert Napier states that the work was composed several years (aliquot annos) before Napier had invented the name logarithm. The Constructio therefore may have been written a good many years previous to the publication of the Descriptio in 1614.

The Canon Mirificus, on its appearance in 1614, at once attracted the attention of perhaps the two most eminent English mathematicians then living—Edward Wright and Henry Briggs. The former, as we have seen, translated the work into English, but died in 1615 before he could publish his translation. The latter was concerned with Napier in the change of the logarithms from those originally invented to decimal or common logarithms, and it is to him that the original calculation of the logarithmic tables now in use is mainly due (see Briggs). He died on January 26, 1631, aged about seventy-four years, so that at the time of the publication of the Canon Mirificus he was about fifty-seven years of age. In a letter to Archbishop Ussher, dated Gresham House, March 10, 1615, Briggs wrote, “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”; and he also states “that he was wholly taken up and employed about the noble invention of logarithm!, lately discovered.” In the summer of 1615 he went to Merchiston and stayed with Napier a whole month; he repeated his visit in 1616, and, as he states, he “would have been glad to make him a third visit, if it had pleased God to spare him so long.” William Lilly, the astrologer, in his Life and Times, 1721, gives the following account of the meeting between Napier and Briggs on the occasion of the first visit :—

“I will acquaint you with one memorable story, related unto me by Mr John Marr, an excellent mathematician and geometrician, whom I conceive you remember: he was servant to King James and Charles I. At first, when the Lord Napier, or Marchiston, first made publick his logarithms, Mr Briggs, then reader of the Astronomy lecture at Gresham College in London, was so surprised with admiration of them that he could have no quietness in himself, until he had seen that noble person the Lord Marchiston whose only invention they were: he acquaints John Marr herewith, who went into 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, the Lord Napier was doubtful he would not come. It happened one day as John Marr and the Lord Napier were speaking of Mr Briggs; ‘Ah, John,’ saith Marchiston, ‘Mr Briggs will not now come’; at the very instant one knocks at the gate; John Marr hasted down and it proved Mr Briggs to his great contentment. He brings Mr Briggs up into my Lord’s chamber, where almost one quarter of an hour was spent, each beholding the other almost with admiration, before one word was spoke. 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 Logarithms; but my Lord, being by you found out, I wonder nobody else found it out before, when now known it is so easy.’ He was nobly entertained by the Lord Napier, and every summer after that, during the Lord’s being alive, this venerable man, Mr Briggs went purposely into Scotland to visit him.”

With respect to the change of the logarithms to decimal logarithms, the concluding paragraph of the “Admonitio” which appears on the last page of the Canon of 1614 is “Verùm si huius inventi usum eruditis gratum fore intellexero, dabo fortasse brevi (Deo aspirante) rationem ac methodum aut hunc 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.” In some copies, however, this “Admonitio” is absent. In Wright’s translation of 1616 Napier has added the sentence—“But because the addition and subtraction of these former numbers may seeme somewhat painfull, I intend (if it shall please God) in a second Edition, to set out such Logarithmes as shall make those numbers above written to fall upon decimal numbers, such as 100,000,000, 200,000,000, 300,000,000, &c., which are easie to be added or abated to or from any other number” (p. 19); and in the dedication to the Rabdologia (1617) he wrote “Quorum quidem Logarithmorum speciem aliam multô praestan-tiorem nunc etiam invenimus, & creandi methodum, unà cum eorum usu (si Deus longiorem vitae & valetudinis usuram concesserit) evulgare statuimus; ipsam autem novi canonis supputationem, ob infirmam corporis nostri valetudinem, viris in hoc studii genere versatis relinquimus: imprimis vero doctissimo viro D. Henrico Briggio Londini publico Geometriae Professori, et amico mihi longe charissimo.”

Briggs published in 1617, after Napier’s death, his Logarithmorum Chilias Prima, containing the decimal logarithms of the first thousand numbers to 14 places of decimals. This is the first table of common (or Briggian) logarithms calculated or published. In 1624 he published his Arithmetica Logarithmica, containing the logarithms of the first 20,000 numbers and of the numbers from 90,000 to 100,000 to 14 places of decimals. In the short preface to the Chilias (1617) Briggs states that the reason why his logarithms are different from those introduced by Napier “sperandum, ejus librum posthumum, abunde nobis propediem satisfacturum.” The “liber posthumus” was the Constructio (1619), in the preface to which Robert Napier states that he has added an appendix relating to another and more excellent species of logarithms referred to by the inventor himself in the Rabdologia, and in which the logarithm of unity is 0. He also mentions that he has published some remarks upon the propositions in spherical trigonometry and upon the new species of logarithms by Henry Briggs, “qui novi hujus Canonis supputandi laborem gravissimum, pro singulari amicitia quae illi cum Patre meo L. Μ. intercessit, animo libentissimo in se suscepit; creandi methodo, et usuum explanatione Inventori relictis. Nunc autem ipso ex hâc vitâ evocato, totius negotii onus doctissimi Briggii humeris incumbere, et Sparta haec ornanda illi sorte quadam obtigisse videtur.” In the address prefixed to the Arithmetica Logarithmica (1625) Briggs bids the reader not to be surprised that these logarithms are different from those published in the Canon Mirificus :—

“Ego enim, cum meis auditoribus Londini, publice iu Collegio Greshamensi horum doctrinam explicarem; animadverti multo futurum commodius, si Logarithmus sinus totius servaretur 0 (ut in Canone mirifico) Logarithmus autem partis decimae ejusdem sinus totius, nempe sinus 5 graduum, 44, m. 21, s., esset 10000000000. atque ea de re scripsi statim ad ipsum authorem, et quamprimum per anni tempus, et vacationem a publico docendi munere licuit, profectus sum Edinburgum; ubi humanissime ab eo acceptus haesi per integrum mensem. Cum autem inter nos de horum mutatione sermo haberetur; ille se idem dudum sensisse, et cupivisse dicebat: veruntamen istos, quos jam paraverat edendos curasse, donec alios, si per negotia et valetudinem liceret, magis commodos confecisset. Istam autem mutationem ita faciendam censebat, ut 0 esset Logarithmus unitatis, et 10000000000 sinus totius: quod ego longe commodissimum esse non potui non agnoscere. Coepi igitur, ejus hortatu, rejectis illis quos antea paraveram, de horum calculo serio cogitare; et sequenti aestate iterum profectus Edinburgum, horum quos hic exhibeo praecipuos, illi ostendi, idem etiam tertia aestate libentissime facturus, si Deus illum nobis tamdiu superstitem esse voluisset.”

There is also a reference to the change of the logarithms on the title-page of the work.

These extracts contain all the original statements made by Napier, Robert Napier, and Briggs which have reference to the origin of decimal logarithms. It will be seen that they are all in perfect agreement. Briggs pointed out in his lectures at Gresham College that it would be 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 whole sine (that is to say, of the sine of 5° 44' 21'') should be 10,000,000,000. He wrote also to Napier at once; and as soon as he could he tvent to Edinburgh to visit him, where, as he was most hospitably received by him, he remained for a whole month. Whe

NAPIER, Sir William Francis Patrick (1785-1860), the third son of Colonel and Lady Sarah Napier, and brother of Sir Charles and Sir George Napier, was born at Cellbridge, near Dublin, on the 17th of December 1785. He became an ensign in the Royal Irish Artillery in 1800, but at once exchanged into the 62d, and was put on halfpay in 1802. He was afterwards made a cornet in the Blues by his uncle the duke of Richmond, and exchanged into the 52d regiment. He obtained a company in a West India regiment, but exchanged again into the 43d when it was being trained at Shorncliffe under Sir John Moore, who took Napier into special favour, and won his everlasting gratitude. He served in Denmark, and was present at the engagement of Kioge, and, his regiment being shortly afterwards sent to Spain, he bore himself nobly through the retreat to Corunna. In 1809 he became aide-de-camp to his uncle in Ireland, but joined the 43d when ordered again to Spain. With the light brigade (the 43d, 52d, and 95th), under the command of General Craufurd, he marched to Talavera in the famous forced march which he has described in his History, and had a violent attack of ])leurisy on the way. He, however, refused to leave Spain, was wounded on the Coa, and shot near the spine at Cazal Nova. His conduct was so conspicuous during the pursuit of Masséna after he left the lines of Torres Vedras that he as well as his brother George was recommended for a brevet majority. He became brigade major, was present at Fuentes d’Onor, but had so bad an attack of ague that he was obliged to return to England. In England he fell in love with and married Caroline Fox, the daughter of General Henry Fox, with whom Moore had been in love in Sicily. Three days after his marriage he again started for Spain, and was present at the storming of Badajoz, where his great friend Colonel M i Leod was killed. In the absence of the new lieutenant-colonel he took command of the 43d regiment, and commanded it at the battle of Salamanca. After a short stay at home he again joined his regiment at the Pyrenees, and did his greatest military service at the battle of the Nivelle, where, with instinctive military insight, he secured the most strongly fortified part of Soult’s position, practically without orders. He served with his regiment at the battles of the Nive, Orthes, and Toulouse. For his services he was made brevet lieutenant-colonel, and one of the first C.B.’s. Like his brother Charles he then entered the military college at Farnham. He commanded his regiment in the army of occupation in France until 1819, when he retired on halfpay. As it was impossible for him to live on his half-pay with a wife and family, he determined to become an artist, and took a house in Sloane Street, where he studied with George Jones, the academician. The years he had spent in France he had occupied in improving his general education, for it will hardly be believed that the author of the History of the War in the Peninsula could not spell or write respectable English till that time. But his career was to be great in literature, not in art. The tendency appeared in an able review of Jomini in 1821, and in 1823 Mr Bickersteth, afterwards Lord Langdale, suggested to him the expediency of writing a history of the Peninsular War. For some time he did not take kindly to the suggestion, but at last determined to become an author in order to defend the memory of Sir John Moore, and to prevent the glory of his old chief being overshadowed by that of Wellington. The duke of Wellington himself gave him much assistance, and handed over to him the whole of Joseph Bonaparte’s correspondence which had been taken at the battle of Vittoria; this was all in cipher, but Mrs Napier, with great patience, discovered the keys. In 1828 the first volume of the History appeared, and it was at once seen that the great deeds of the Peninsular War were about to be fitly commemorated. The excitement which followed the publication of each volume is proved by the innumerable pamphlets issued by those who believed themselves to be attacked, and by personal altercations with many distinguished officers. But the success of the book was proved still more by the‘absence of competition than by these bitter controversies. The histories of Southey and Lord Londonderry fell still-born, and Sir George Murray, who had determined to produce the history, gave up the attempt in despair. This success was due to a combina tion of qualities which have justly secured for Napier the title of being the best military historian England has produced. The best military histories have always been written by eye-witnesses. It is impossible for a new generation to analyse the military combinations and understand the minute facts which account for the winning or losing of a battle, though it may often unravel political intrigues which were veiled to the eyes of contemporaries. Napier added to this qualification a wonderful insight into the nature of war, and was able to describe and understand the movements and feelings of the French as well as of the army in which he himself served. But neither contemporary knowledge nor military ability could have made his History memorable without a peculiarly appropriate literary style. He knew well how to mingle passages relating to individuals with descriptions of military movements, and how to relieve the dryness of details by an occasional glance at more extended subjects. He possessed an enthusiastic admiration for nearly all the heroes whose deeds he touched on. His admiration for Napoleon was only second to that for Moore, and he could feel for Soult in defeat as well as for Wellington in the hour of victory. When in 1840 the last volume of the History was published, his fame not only in England but in France and Germany was safely established. His life during these years had been chiefly absorbed in his History, but he had warmly sympathized with the movement for political reform which was agitating England. The Radicals of Bath pressed him to sit for their city, and it was commonly reported that if the reformers had found it necessary to resort to force Colonel Napier would have been their commander-in-chief. In 1842 he was promoted major-general, and had given him the lieutenant-governorship of Guernsey. Here he found plenty of occupation in controlling the relations between the soldiers and the inhabitants, and also found time to propound a complete scheme of reform for the government of the island. While he was at Guernsey his brother Charles had conquered Sind, and the attacks made on the policy of that conquest brought William Napier again into the field of literature. In 1845 he published his History of the Conquest of Scinde, and in 1851 the corresponding History of the Administration of Scinde — books which in style and vigour rivalled the great History, but which, being written for controversial purposes, are not likely to maintain such an enduring popularity. In 1847 he resigned his governorship, and in 1848 was made a K.C.B., and settled at Scinde House, Clapham Park. His time was fully occupied in defending his brother, in revising the numerous editions of his History which were being called for, and in writing letters to the Times on every conceivable subject, whether military or literary. His energy is the more astonishing when it is remembered that he never recovered from the effects of the wound he had received at Cazal Nova, and that he often had to lie on his back for months together.

His domestic life was shadowed by the incurable affliction of his only son, and when his brother Charles died in 1853 the world seemed to be darkening round him. He devoted himself to writing the life of that brother, which appeared in 1857, and which is in many respects his most characteristic book. In the end of 1853 his younger brother, Captain Henry Napier, R.N., the historian of Florence, died, and in 1855 his brother Sir George. Inspired by his work, he lived on till the year 1860, when, broken by trouble, fatigue, and ill-health, he died (on February 12) at Clapham.

As a military historian Sir William Napier is incomparably superior to any other English writer, and. his true compeers are Thucydides, Caesar, and Davila. All four had been soldiers in the wars they describe; all four possessed a peculiar insight into the mainsprings of action both in war and peace; and all four possessed a peculiar and inimitable style. Napier always wrote as if he was burning with an inextinguishable desire to express what he was feeling, which gives his style a peculiar spontaneity, and yet he rewrote the first volume of his History no less than six times. His descriptions of sieges and of battles are admirable by themselves, and his analyses of the peculiarly intricate Spanish intrigues are even more remarkable, while the descriptions and analyses are both lit up with flashes of political wisdom and military insight. It is to be noted that he displays the spirit of the partisan, even when most impartial, and defends his opinions, even when most undoubtedly true, as if he were arguing some controverted question. If his style was modelled on anything, it was on Caesar’s commentaries, and a thorough knowledge of the writings of the Roman general will often explain allusions in Napier. The portraits of Sir John Moore and Colonel M*Leod, and the last paragraphs descriptive of the storming of Badajoz, may be taken as examples of the great natural eloquence which arose from the loving recollection of friends, or the deep impression made by a most terrible scene upon his vivid imagination.

For Sir William Napier’s life, see his Life and Letters, edited by the Right Honourable H. A. Bruce (now Lord Aberdare), 2 vols., 1862. The dates of his books are given above. The edition of the History published in 1851 is the best, and contains the answers to various criticisms which sum up the controversies arising from statements in the work. The French translation is by Count Mathieu Dumas. (H. Μ. S.)