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:
I have continued the Sines of the Projection unto two severall revolutions, the one beginning at 77.gr. 45.m. 6.s. and ends at 90.gr. (being the last revolution of the decuplation of the former, or the hundred part of that Projection) the other beginning at 86.gr. 6.m. 48.s. and ends at 90.gr. (being the last of a ternary of decuplated revolutions, or the thousand part of that Projection) and may bee thus used.
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:
I found that it required many times too great a paire of Compasses [in using Gunter’s line], which would bee hard to open, apt to slip, and troublesome for use. I therefore first devised to have another Ruler with the former: and so by setting and applying one to the other, I did not onely take away the use of Compasses, but also make the worke much more easy and expedite: when I should not at all need the motion of my hand, but onely the glancing at my sight: and with one position of the Rulers, and view of mine eye, see not one onely, but the manifold proportions incident unto the question intended. But yet this facility also wanted not some difficulty especially in the line of tangents, when one arch was in the former mediety of the quadrant, and the other in the latter: for in this case it was needful that either one Ruler must bee as long againe as the other; or else that I must use an inversion of the Ruler, and regression. By this consideration I first of all saw that if those lines upon both Rulers were inflected into two circles, that of the tangents being in both doubled, and that those two Circles should move one upon another; they with a small thread in the center to direct the sight, would bee sufficient with incredible and wonderfull facility to worke all questions of Trigonometry . . .
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.
Delamain’s Statement
Grammelogia IV, page (98)“. . . about Alhalontide 1630. (as our Authors reporteth) was the time he was circumvented, and then his intent in a loving manner (as before) he opened unto me, which particularly I will dismantle in the very naked truth: for, wee being walking together some few weekes before Christmas, upon Fishstreet hill, we discoursed upon sundry things Mathematicall, both Theoreticall and Practicall, and of the excellent inventions and helpes that in these dayes were produced, amongst which I was not a little taken with that of the Logarythmes, commending greatly the ingenuitie of Mr. Gunter in the Projection, and inventing of his Ruler, in the lines of proportion, extracted from these Logarythmes for ordinary Practicall uses; He replyed unto me (in these very words) What will yov say to an Invention that I have, which in a lesse extent of the Compasses shall worke truer then that of Mr. Gunters Ruler, I asked him then of what forme it was, he answered with some pause (which no doubt argued his suspition of mee that I might conceive it) that it was Arching-wise, but now hee sayes that hee told mee then, it was Circular (but were I put to my oath to avoid the guilt of Conscience I would conclude in the former.) At which immediately I answered, I had the like my selfe, and so we discoursed not a word more touching that subject . . . Then after my coming home I sent him a sight of my Projection drawne in Pastboard: Now admit I had not the Invention of my Ring before I discoursed . . . it was not so facil for mee . . . to raise and compose so complete, and absolute an Instrument from so small a principle, or glimpse of light . . .”