A briefe and true report of the new found land of Virginia (London, 1588); Artis analyticae praxis, ad æquationes algebraicas novâ, expeditâ, & generali methodo, resolvendas: Tractatus e posthumis (London, 1631).
2.
See LohneJ. A., “The fair fame of Thomas Harriott. Rigaud versus Baron von Zach”, Centaurus, viii (1963), 69–84.
3.
Henry Stevens of Vermont, Thomas Hariot [c. 1885] (London, 1900); ClarkeAgnes M., “Harriott, Thomas”, in The dictionary of national biography, xxiv (London, 1890), 437–9.
4.
Shirley in fact published only a very brief account of Walter Warner's report (British Museum, Birch MS 4406, f. 183) of how, having had the sine-law “of Mr Hariot”, Warner had made new “trials” in the late 1620s to test its validity by experiment (“An early experimental determination of Snell's Law”, American journal of physics, xix (1951), 507–8; see also his earlier survey of “The scientific experiments of Sir Walter Raleigh, the wizard Earl, and the three magi in the Tower, 1603–1607”, Ambix, iii (1949), 52–66). Lohne's several fundamental articles on Harriot's optical discoveries are noted in following references.
5.
Namely Muriel Rukeyser's The traces of Thomas Hariot (New York, 1971). The sober English printing (London, 1972) lacks the visual extravagance of the American editio princeps, whose dust-jacket proclaims as its by-line that “He burst from history into legend” and carries on its rear a giant close-up of Miss Rukeyser's left eye. In its factual basis the book is solidly derivative from published secondary sources except for such items as a feeble attempt to transcribe (p. 258) a tatty set of couplets on “Three Sea Marriadges” (British Museum, Add. MS 6788, f. 490) which is quoted—again not quite correctly—by Pepper on p. 59 of the present volume.
6.
A cliché-ridden report by Robert Reinhold on this “Thomas Harriot Symposium”, somewhat shaky in its facts but interesting for its impressions of what the novelties of the conference were, appeared in The New York times (8 April 1971), p. 39 (and was syndicated in The international herald tribune five days later).
7.
CajoriF., “A revaluation of Harriot's Artis analyticæ praxis”, Isis, xi (1928), 316–24.
8.
LohneJ. A., “Thomas Harriott (1560–1621): The Tycho Brahe of optics. [A] preliminary notice”, Centaurus, vi (1959), 113–21. I would add that, since Rosen appends no footnotes to his article, nor otherwise identifies his citations in any but the most general terms, it is not possible exactly to delimit his familiarity with the existing sources on Harriot's science.
9.
R. C. H. Tanner in her study of “Thomas Harriot as mathematician” (Physics, ix (1967), 257–92) points out that S. P. Rigaud had long before, in Plate v, facing p. 52 in his 1833 Supplement to his edition of The miscellaneous works of James Bradley (Oxford, 1832), reproduced in facsimile Harriot's computation of the two complex roots (as well, of course, as the two real ones) of the quartic x4 – 6x2 + 136x – 1155 = 0. It is not the only mutual inconsistency in the present volume that Dr Tanner again draws attention to this instance of Harriot's confident handling of such conjugate ‘noetic’ pairs in her own article on p. 101.
10.
See his p. 3. Lohne in fact sketched the diagram of the ‘Regium’ (British Museum, Add. ms 6789, f. 320) in which Harriot modelled the exact sine-law in his very first article upon his optical researches (“The Tycho Brahe of optics”, ref. 8, 117) and there went on to indicate that Harriot used it to derive the refractaria (the image as seen by the eye of a straight line below and parallel to the interface between two media). In his “Zur Geschichte des Brechungsgesetzes” (Sudhoffs Archiv, xlvii (1963), 152–72) Lohne has inserted a photocopy of the manuscript page in illustration (facing p. 160), and in his ensuing “Thomas Harriot als Mathematiker” (Centaurus, xi (1965), 19–45) has (p. 41) given an accurate transcription of BM. Add. ms 6787, f. 535 where the Regium is applied to prove that the refractaria is (under Harriot's assumption of the location of the single point-images) an ellipse. A yet more detailed discussion by him of Harriot's preliminary researches into the refractaria will be found on pp. 194–8 of his recent perceptive comparison of Kepler's and Harriot's “Wege zum Brechungsgesetz” (Internationales Kepler-Symposium, Weil der Stadt 1971 (Hildesheim, 1973), 187–214).
11.
As Lower's following letter to Harriot on 13 April 1611 (printed from the original in BM. Add. ms 6789, f. 431, by HalliwellJ. O. in his A collection of letters illustrative of the progress of science in England (London, 1841), 41) confirms, the problem cited is the “last … of his second apendicle, Apol[lonius] Gal[lus]” (Paris, 1600 = Opera mathematica (ed. SchootenFrans, Leyden, 1646), 343–6), where Viète adduces lemmas from his still unpublished Ad harmonicon cœleste libri quinque priores to bypass Copernicus's cumbrous ‘atechny’ in determining the orbit (in longitude) of an upper planet datis tribus locis acronychiis (see Liber v, Capita 5/6 of Copernicus's De revolutionibus orbium cœlestium libri sex (Nuremberg, 1543)). Without here going into mathematical detail, it is clear that, from the hints given by Viète in his Appendicula II, Harriot had accurately divined the latter's “single direct solution” replacing the “laborious iterative method used by Copernicus” (Noel Swerdlow, “The derivation and first draft of Copernicus's planetary theory: A translation of the Commentariolus with commentary”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxvii (1973), 423–512, especially p. 471) which is set out in its Problema iv. As Harriot doubtless pointed out to Lower, Viète's long-winded construction of the subsidiary Problema v may indeed be replaced by one making short and elegant equivalent employment of two Apollonius circles; his ready generalization of the problem beyond the plane in which it is determinate and alone has astronomical sense is, however, of mathematical interest only and would probably have been rejected by Viète himself.
12.
On his pp. 16–17 Shirley transcribes anew Harriot's notes of Ralegh's speech on the occasion, first published by Stevens in his Hariot (ref. 3 above), as being “probably the most accurate [acount of it] yet encountered”.
13.
Much as in her earlier article on this theme in History of science, vi (1967), 1–16.
These have already been more skimpily discussed by TaylorEva G.SadlerD. H.in Journal of the Institute of Navigation, v (1952), 345–50 and vi (1953), 131–47 respectively.
16.
As just one instance, Pepper nowhere in his article that I can see defines what the “seven rhumb lines” on the globe—in fact, the spiral lines on its surface traversed at constant course 90° to the meridian, i = 1, 2, 3, …, 7—are, and the reader who is ignorant of this terminus technicus will hence fail to appreciate the force of his remark (p. 84) that “the table for the fourth rhumb is in effect a table of mer[idional]-parts”. The immediately preceding extract from Dee's table of the “7th rhumb” (of constant course “East by North” at 78° 45′ to the meridian) is, further to confuse, inaccurately explained: Dee's ‘Continuate’ is here the loxodromic longitude (and not the ‘d.long’, which is rather Dee's ‘Resolute’) and the whole table is better described in standard parlance of the period as “Raising degrees of latitude on the 7th rhumb”. I would add that I am very firmly taken to task on p. 83 for the remark (Mathematical papers of Isaac Newton, i (1967), 475, note 35) that “J. A. Lohne has established that Harriot had the mer-parts in 1594 by stereographic projection”. Which would be fair enough except that I there wrote that “Lohne has recently established that the first evaluation of the integral [ sec x.dx] (by stereographic projection from the south pole into a … logarithmic spiral) was made by Harriot about 1594 in … British Museum, Add. 6789: 17rff”; from which I take it that Pepper conflates the ‘evaluation’ of the integral implicit in the defining property of an equiangular spiral with its numerical tabular solution as a dense, ordered listing of meridional parts. (By the same token he would, I assume, deny Napier the invention of the logarithmus y = r.log(r/x) innate in his kinematic construction of the defining differential equation dy/dx = –r/x until he had achieved the tabulation of its numerical values (for r = 107) which he published in 1614 in his Descriptio, and perhaps not even then if one recalls the weakness of the approximate equalities on which he based its computation.) It is a pity, incidentally, that the graduated card (now found in lonely isolation with the manuscript of the “Instructions”) on which Harriot drew the ‘helical’ projections on the equatorial plane of the seven principal rhumbs could not have been reproduced in photocopy rather than as the inadequate line-figure which is here set on p. 74 (and is repeated in jazzed-up polychrome, doubtless for its irrelevant visual strikingness, on the book's dust-jacket), The precision with which Harriot traced his seven logarithmic spirals in his manuscript would have afforded an invaluable silent commentary on his capacity in 1594 accurately to construct the plane chart.
17.
A current article by A. Van Helden on “The telescope in the seventeenth century” (Isis, lxv (1974), 38–58) makes (p. 51) a single bare mention of Harriot's name without note of what he observed or when. Henry King in his standard History of the telescope (London, 1955), 39–40, is only marginally better informed, relying uniquely on Rigaud's 1833 Supplement to Bradley's Works (see ref. 9) as his documentary source.
18.
Least forgivable, perhaps, is the mangling of the Latin title (ref. 1) of Harriot's posthumously edited 1631 treatise on algebra. The short-week working and general economic crisis of the winter in which the book came off the press will excuse such omissions as that of Lohne's fundamental “Kepler und Harriot: Ihre Wege zum Brechungsgesetz” (ref. 10, above)—even though it was initially delivered orally at Weil der Stadt in August 1971—but not that of his “Ballistik og bevegelslaere på Galileis tid” (Frafysikkens verden, i (1964), 1–4) or of the Dictionary of national biography article by Agnes Clarke (see ref. 3) which has done fine service these past eighty years in giving so many (and not least Lohne) an informed introduction to Harriot studies.
90° to the meridian, 
sec