Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T23:17:36.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Harriot's ‘Regiment of the Sun’ and its Background in Sixteenth-Century Navigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

John J. Roche
John J. Roche
Affiliation:
Linacre College, Oxford OX1 3JA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is well known that Richard Hakluyt in a publication of 1581 congratulated Sir Walter Ralegh for employing Harriot to teach him and his many sea captains the sciences of navigation. Even more important, however, was the navigational research carried out by Harriot on behalf of Ralegh. He made important theoretical advances in map theory and in navigational astronomy, carried out the astronomical observations needed for a reform in navigational tables, and designed and himself tested at sea improved navigational instruments. Harriot had many other responsibilities in connexion with Ralegh's enterprises. From August 1585 to June 1586 Harriot was in Virginia, and in 1589 he was listed as one of Ralegh's colonists in Munster. He collected intelligence concerning America for Ralegh, and his publication of 1588 was effective as propaganda for Virginia. Harriot was also entrusted with financial, and even political responsibilities by Ralegh. Instructing Ralegh and his captains in navigation was an important part of Harriot's work but it is more likely that he did this as the occasion demanded, rather than on a regular basis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , November 1981 , pp. 245 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 Hakluyt, Richard (ed.), De orbe novo Petri martyris anglerii mediolanensis, Paris, 1587Google Scholar, preface. For a detailed history of navigation in this period see Waters, D. W., The art of navigation in England in Elizabethan and early Stuart times, London, 1958.Google Scholar

2 See Pepper, Jon V., ‘Harriot's calculation of the meridional parts as logarithmic tangents’, Archive for history of exact sciences, 1968, 4, 359–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem, ‘Harriot's earlier work on mathematical navigation’, in Shirley, John W. (ed.), Thomas Harriot, renaissance scientist, Oxford, 1974, pp. 54–90.Google Scholar

3 British Museum (hereafter BM) Add.MS 6788, ff. 476, 485; see below, pp. 246, 257.

4 Shirley, John W., ‘Sir Walter Ralegh and Thomas Harriot’, in his op. cit. (2), pp. 21, 33.Google Scholar

5 Quinn, David B., ‘Thomas Harriot and the New World’Google Scholar, in ibid., p. 43.

6 Harriot, Thomas, A briefe and true report of the new found land of Virginia, London, 1588.Google Scholar

7 ‘The Will of Thomas Harriot’, in Tanner, R. C. H., ‘Thomas Harriot as mathematician’, Pysis, 1967, 9, 247Google Scholar; Latham, A., ‘Sir Walter Ralegh's Will’, Review of English studies, 1971, 22, 129–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 See Historical Manuscripts Commission (hereafter HMC), Calendar of the manuscripts of… the Marquis of Salisbury, London, 1895, vi, 256–7.Google Scholar

9 See SirRalegh, W., The discoverie of the large, rich and beautiful empire of Guiana, London, 1596.Google Scholar

10 Rowse, A. L., Ralegh and the Throckmortons, London, 1962, p. 160 and facing plates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Lefranc, Pierre, Sir Walter Ralegh, écrivain, Paris, 1968, pp. 137–8, n. 10.Google Scholar

12 This house still stands as part of the present Sherborne castle; Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, England: Dorset, vol. i: West, London, 1952, pp. 64–9.Google Scholar

13 See Taylor, E. G. R., ‘Harriot's instructions for Ralegh's voyage to Guianay’, Journal of the Institute of Navigation, 1952, 5, 345–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ralegh, , op. cit. (9), p. 1.Google Scholar

15 Shirley, John W., ‘Sir Walter Raleigh's Guiana finances’, Huntingdon Library quarterly, 1949–1950, 13, 55–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

16 BM Add.MS 6788. ff. 211v–220v

17 ibid., f. 423.

18 ibid., f. 488.

19 ibid., ff. 485, 486. The mode of address and other circumstances mentioned above show clearly that the latter are addressed.

20 SirRalegh, W., The discovery… of Guiana (ed. by Schomburgk, R. H.), London, 1848, p. lxviii.Google Scholar

21 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 484, 486, 487.

22 ibid., ff. 485–9.

23 See, however, Roche, J., ‘Thomas Harriot's Astronomy’, University of Oxford D Phil thesis, 1977, pp. 187–9.Google Scholar

24 . Nuñez, P., De arte atque ratione navigandi, Coimbra, 1573, book I, pp. 45–6.Google Scholar

25 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 484, 485. The topic referred to here is discussed in Latin in Nuñez’ De arte…, and in the edition of the latter which appeared in Nuñez, Opera, Basel, 1592.

26 ibid., f. 485.

27 Ralegh, , op. cit. (9), sig. A 3v.Google Scholar; Latham, A. (ed.), Sir Walter Raleigh: selected prose and poetry, London, 1965, p. 113.Google Scholar

28 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 485.

29 ibid., ff. 485–9; Petworth House IIMC 241/VIb, p. 32.

30 See below, pp. 255–8.

31 French, Peter, John Dee, London, 1972, p. 125.Google Scholar

32 Roche, , op. cit. (23), pp. 87–8.Google Scholar

33 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 469, 480.

34 Roche, J. J., ‘The radius astronomicus in England’, Annals of science, 1981, 38, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35 Crossley, J. (ed.), Autobiographical tracts of Dr. John Dee, London, 1851, p. 28.Google Scholar

36 Digges, Leonard, A boke named Tectonicon, London, 1556, sig. f. 1v.Google Scholar

37 Digges, Thomas, Alae seu scalae mathematicae, London, 1573, sigs. I1–L3v.Google Scholar

38 Roche, , op. cit. (34), pp. 19–23.Google Scholar

39 Brahe, Tycho, Astronomiae instauratae mechanica, Wandesbeck, 1598, f. 28vGoogle Scholar; and Roche, , op. cit. (34), pp. 21–2, 28, 31–2.Google Scholar

40 Horrox, Jeremiah, Opera posthuma (ed. by Wallis, John), London, 1672–3, pp. 252, 255, 298–9, 304–5.Google Scholar

41 Birch, Thomas (ed.), Miscellaneous works of Mr. John Greaves, 2 vols., London, 1737, i, pp. ix, 92, ii, p. 508Google Scholar; Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Smith, 93 f. 161.

42 Zinner, E., Astronomischen Instrumente, Munich, 1956, plate 16.2Google Scholar; Roche, , op. cit. (34), pp. 28–32.Google Scholar

43 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 486–9; HMC 241/VIb, p. 31; HMC 241/VII, ff. 1–7.

44 Halliwell, J. O., Letters illustrative of the progress of science, London, 1841, pp. 32–3.Google Scholar

45 HMC 24 I/II, p. 87. We do not know when this transcription was made.

46 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 480; see also Pepper, J. V., ‘Studies of some of Thomas Harriot's unpublished mathematical and scientific manuscripts’, University of London PhD thesis, 1978, pp. 137–257.Google Scholar

47 ibid., ff. 468–9.

48 ‘Durham place’, Survey of London, London, 1937, xviii, chapter XII.Google Scholar

49 ibid., p. 89.

50 Rowse, , op. cit. (10), p. 233.Google Scholar

51 Survey, op. cit. (48), pp. 93, 94.Google Scholar

52 ibid., p. 92, and plate 2, p. 164; Van den Wyngaerde, A., London, c. 1542Google Scholar; Marks, S. P., The map of mid-sixteenth-century London, London, 1964, plate VGoogle Scholar; Glanville, Philippa, London in maps, London, 1972, plate 3, p. 76, and plate 4, p. 79Google Scholar; Norden, John, Speculum Britanniae London, 1593.Google Scholar

53 E.g., Sinobas, Rico Y. (ed.), Libros del saber de astronomia, Madrid, 1866, ii, 71Google Scholar; iv, 6; see also 55, below.

54 This is 11.2 minutes. See Smart, W. M., Spherical astronomy, Cambridge, 1962, p. 420.Google Scholar

55 de Albuquerque, Lúis, ‘Astronomical navigation’, in Cortesão, Armando, A history of Portuguese cartography, Coimbra, 1971, pp. 290–4.Google Scholar

56 Zacuto, A., Almanach perpetuum, facsmile edn. by Bensaude, J., Munich, 1915.Google Scholar

57 Obliquity of the ecliptic, ε = 23°27′ 8.26″–46″. 84T. Where T is measured in Julian centuries from 1900; Smart, , op. cit. (54), p. 420.Google Scholar

58 de Medina, Peter, The arte of navigation (tr. by Frampton, John), London, 1581, p. 46.Google Scholar

59 Zacuto, , op. cit. (56), pp. 33–42.Google Scholar

60 Bourne, William, An almanacke and prognostication for three yeares, London, 1571, sig. DviiGoogle Scholar; see also n. 102, below.

61 Regimento do estrolabio e do quadrante, facsmile edn. by Besaude, J., Munich, 1914.Google Scholar

62 The book of Francisco Rodrigues (tr. and ed. by Cortesão, Armando), London, 1944, pp. 313–18.Google Scholar

63 Regimento do estrolabio Evora, facsimile edn. by Bensaude, J., Munich, 1914 or 1915, pp. 61ff.Google Scholar

64 Nuñez, P., Tratado da esphera, 1537, facsimile edn. by Bensaude, J., Munich, 1915, pp. 171–15.Google Scholar

65 Joannes de Regiomonte, Tabula directionum profectionum…. Augsburg, 1490, sig. d. 7v; and Nuñez, , op. cit. (24), p. 35Google Scholar, where he refers to Regiomontanus's value of the obliquity.

66 Stoeflerus, Joannes, Ephemeridum …, Tübingen, 1531, sigs L2v–S5v.Google Scholar

67 Cortes, Martin, Breve compendio de la sphera y de la arte de navegar, Seville, 1556 (1st edn., Seville, 1551).Google Scholar Cortes used the same table of solar declinations as Nuñez at f.30v, and Zacuto's form of solar longitude tables at ff. 28v–29.

68 Cortes, Martin, The arte of navigation, englished by Eden, Richard, London, 1561, f.xxvi.Google Scholar

69 Bourne, William, A regiment for the sea, London, 1577 (1st edn., London, 1574), ff. 17v–25.Google Scholar

70 Norman, Robert, The newe attractive, London, 1581, sigs. Fiii–Givv.Google Scholar

71 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 205–210*.

72 Wright, Edward, Certaine errors in navigation, London, 1599, sigs. Mm4-O01v.Google Scholar

73 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 469.

74 Reinhold, Erasmus, Tabulae prutenicae, Tübingen, 1551.Google Scholar

75 Copernicus, , On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres (tr. introduction, and notes by Duncan, A. M.), Newton Abbot, 1976, p. 155.Google Scholar

76 Bourne, , op. cit. (60), sigs. Dviii–Eiiii.Google Scholar

77 Bourne, , op. cit. (70).Google Scholar

78 Çamorano, Rodrigo, Compendio de la arte de navegar, Seville, 1581, f. 17v.Google Scholar

79 Waghenaer, Lucas, Spieghel der Zeevaerdt, Leyden, 1584, p. 12.Google Scholar

80 Blundeville, Thomas, His exercises, London, 1594, p. 344.Google Scholar

81 Cyprianus Leovitius, Ephemeridum novum… Augsburg, 1557.

82 Stadius, Joannes, Ephemerides… 1554 usque ad… 1600, Cologne, 1570Google Scholar; Magini, Joannes, Ephemerides… (1581–1620), Venice, 1582.Google Scholar

83 See p. 250 above.

84 For 1593 the maximum errors in Stadius's and Leovitus's tables were ⅔ and ⅓ respectively; see n. 127, below.

85 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 468–9.

86 See below, p. 257.

87 ibid.

88 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 469.

89 ibid.

90 See n. 57, above.

91 HMC 241/11, pp. 2–3. In fact the maximum solar parallax is only about 9″: Smart, , op. cit. (54), p. 420.Google Scholar

92 The calculation of this value has had to be omitted due to cost and lack of space. Full details are available from the author.

93 Bm Add.MS 6788, f. 489.

94 In practice it was usually too small for navigators to bother about; see BM Add.MS 6788, f. 489.

95 Brahe, Tycho, De mandi aethereii recentioribus phaenomenis, Uraniburg, 1588, 74.Google Scholar

96 Wright, , op. cit. (72), sig. G.g.2.Google Scholar

97 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 489.

98 Lohne, J. A., ‘Harriot’, in Gillispie, C. C. (ed.), Dictionary of scientific biography, New York, 1972, vi, 124–9 (125).Google Scholar

99 Copernicus, , op. cit. (75), book III, chapter XVI, p. 173.Google Scholar

100 Dreyer, J. L. E., Tycho Brahe, New York, 1963, p. 333.Google Scholar

101 Wright, , op. cit. (72), sigs. Hh3v-Mm2v.Google Scholar

102 Bourne, William, A regiment for the sea, 1574 (ed. by Taylor, E. G. R.), Cambridge, 1963, p. 189.Google Scholar

103 Roche, , op. cit. (23), pp. 104–5.Google Scholar

104 Table 1, below.

105 See n. 92, above.

106 In 3½ hours the sun moves approximately 9′ in longitude.

107 See table 1, below and n. 92, above.

108 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 206.

109 From Table 1, the errors in the equinoxes in 1593 are —3h 29′ and +2h42′ respectively. Half the difference is 23½ minutes.

110 BM Add.MS f. 207v, and plate 2.

111 See nn. 99, 100, 101, above.

112 Roche, , op. cit. (23), p. 35.Google Scholar

113 HMC 241/11, pp. 18, 19, 20.

114 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 469.

115 The sun takes only four minutes of time to move one degree of terrestrial longitude. The effect on declination is negligible.

116 Harriot was actively engaged in theoretical as well as in practical cartography; see Shirley, John W. (ed.), op. cit. (2), pp. 48, 54–90Google Scholar; Salisbury MSs, op. cit. (8), pp. 256–7.Google Scholar

117 Saxton, Christopher, Chartae geographicae comitatum Angliae et Walliae, London, 1579.Google Scholar

118 Tuckerman, Bryant, Planetary, lunar, and solar positions, 601 BC to AD 1649, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1962, p. 64.Google Scholar

119 Julian year—tropical year = 11.25 minutes; cf. Smart, , op. cit. (54), p. 420.Google Scholar

120 The other possible starting date is the spring equinox of 1590. Harriot would hardly have chosen this as his most accurate equinox since he was then only just beginning, if he had begun at all.

121 See n. 92, above. As was mentioned earlier, it is most unlikely that Harriot calculated the orbital parameters from actual observations of the solstices. However, the accuracy of his predicted times for the solstices of 1593 derived from the accuracy of these parameters. Harriot's declination table was sensitive to a change of 1° in the position of the apogee.

122 Brahe, Tycho, Astronomiae instauratae progymnasmata, Uraniburg and Prague, 1602, pp. 57, 60.Google Scholar

123 Wright, , op. cit. (72), sig. Kk 1v.Google Scholar

124 Again using Tuckerman's Tables, op. cit. (118), and reducing to a meridian 4° W of Greenwich, noon longitudes at 10-day intervals were determined. The solar declination was then calculated using Smart's formular for the obliquity of the ecliptic, op. cit. (57). The results were rounded oft to the nearest minute.

125 Wagenar, Luke, The mariner's mirrour, englished by Ashley, Anthony, London, 1588, sig. A4v.Google Scholar

126 Norman, , op. cit. (70), sig. F iv.Google Scholar

127 For the Alphonsine Tables the maximum error in longitude is 20′ (Leovitius (1557), op. cit. (81), sig. PP3v), therefore the maximum error in declination would be: 20′ x sin 23°33′ + 2′ (parallax) ≈ 10′. For Stadius's Ephemerides (1570), op. cit. (82), sig. Bbbbbbb 3v, the maximum longitude error is 39′ and the corresponding error in declination is ≈ 18′.

128 BM Add.MS 6788, f. 469. A latitude error of one degree is an error of 60 nautical miles, or 111 kilometres. One nautical mile= 1.85 kilometres.

129 See next paragraph.

130 P. 264, above.

131 HMC 241/V1b, pp. 31–2.

132 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 423, 476v, 480–484°; Roche, , op. cit. (23), pp. 116–38.Google Scholar

133 Pepper, , ‘Harriot's earlier work’, op. cit. (2).Google Scholar

134 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 485–9; HMC 241/V1b, p. 32.

135 ibid., f. 475.

136 ibid., f. 469.

137 Nuñez had earlier drawn attention to this error; op. cit. (24), p. 29.Google Scholar

138 Near the equinoxes the declination varies by about 24′ per day (BM Add.MS 6788, f. 206). At a geographic longitude 180° away from the meridian of the ‘Regiment’ there would be a difference of 12′ in the noon declination on the same day.

139 BM Add.MS 6788, ff. 470–1.

140 Roche, , op. cit. (23), p. 145.Google Scholar