CRAIG, John, a Scottish mathematician of the age of Newton, and one of the earliest writers on the fluxionary or differential calculus in this country. Newton no doubt had long been in possession of the principles of this calculus before his modesty allowed him to give his discoveries to the world, and heaven revised^[1. Quo tempore (1685) Cantabrigiae commoratus D. Newtonum rogavi, ut eadem, priusquam praelo committerentur perlegere dignaretur, quodque ille pro summa sua humanitate fecit- (Praef. ad Lect. De Calculo Fluent.) ] one of Craig’s treatises previously to publication in 1685, the year after Leibnitz had announced his discovery in the Leipsic Transactions. Residing at that time at Cambridge, similarity of pursuit had made Craig acquainted with that truly great man; and on his return to Scotland he enjoyed the intimate friendship of the accomplished Dr Pitcairn, and of David Gregory,^[2. In patriam postea redeunti magna mihi intercedebat familiaritas eruditissimo medicoD. Pitcairnio et D. D. Gregorio. (Prae£ Be Calculo Fluent.) ] professor of mathematics in the University of Edinburgh, and afterwards Savilian professor of astronomy at Oxford. His investigations, however, with the new calculus, subjected him to the severe strictures of the distinguished John Bernoulli, but obtained for him the support of Leibnitz, whose approbation may be considered as exempt at least from that national partiality with which he himself charges Craig.^[3. Si Dominus Craigius librum Cheynaei laudat, non miror; laudatus ab ipso et Sectus loquens de Scoto. (Com. Phil. Ep. 157.) ] But whatever praise may be due to Craig for his mathematical inquiries, it must be allowed that his Principia of the Christian religion, by a misapplication of the doctrine of probability to human testimony, rest on premises which lead to conclusions alike sceptical and absurd, and which, though in substance revived by Hume, had been formerly refuted by Ditton, a contemporary mathematician of this country, andby Houte-ville and others on the Continent. If, however, it may be allowed to form an opinion of Craig’s character from a letter to Dr Cheyne,^[4. Phil. Transact. 1703. . « Phil. Transact. 1712. ] there may perhaps be some justice in attributing the erroneous principles of this work rather to theoretical mistake than to wrong intention. He seems ultimately to have been a Fellow of the Royal Society, and vicar of Gillingham, Dorsetshire. 5

Besides several papers in the Philosophical and Leipsic; Transactions, Craig’s separately published writings, now chiefly interesting with reference to the progress of mathematical science, are, 1. Methodus figurarum incis rectis ei curvis quadraturas determinandi, London, 1658, 4to; 2. Tractatus Mathematicus de figurarum curvilinearum quadraturis et locis geometricis, Lond. 1693, 4to; 3. Theologice Christiance Principia Mathematica, Lond. 1699 (reprinted, with a refutation, at Leipsic, 1755); 4. De Calcula Fluentium Libri duo, quibus subiuguntnr Libri duo de Optica Analytica, 1718, 4to.

Ckaig, Sir Thomas, one of the ablest lawyers whom [7:7:441]his country has produced, appears to have been the eldest son of William Craig of Craigfintray, afterwards called Craigston, in the county of Aberdeen. The period of his birth is uncertain; but as he was sent to the university of St Andrews in 1552, we may suppose him to have been born about the year 1538. He was entered at St Leonard’s College; a seminary which was afterwards placed under the direction of Buchanan, and which therefore occupies some space in the academical annals of the age. He took the degree of A. B. in the year 1555; but as his name does not occur in the list of masters, he is supposed to have left the university before he had completed the ordinary course of study. For those who were destined for the legal profession, it was then the usual practice to finish their education in some of the French universities, which about that period attained to the highest eminence as schools of the civil and canon law. A similar practice prevailed almost universally till the earlier part of the last century; and a writer in the reign of Charles the First thought it not a little “strange toe see ane man admitted to teach the lawes, who was never out of the countrie stu-dicing and learning the lawes.”^[5. Spalding’s Hist, of the Troubles in Scotland, vol. i. p. 179- Edinb. 1828-9, 2 vols. 4to.—The individual to whom he alludes is James Sandilands, professor of the canon, and afterwards of the civil law, in King’s College, Aberdeen. ] The law of Scotland is to a great extent founded on the principles of the civil law; and without a competent knowledge of the civil law, no man can attain to a complete and masterly knowledge of the law of Scotland. At an early period, when the students of law were very few in number, the professors were without a sufficient excitement to exertion; and the Scotish youth were compelled to seek for able preceptors in other countries.^[6. “Ea enim actate sapere, nisi Romano jure, homines non videbantur.” (Gadendam, Hist. Juris Cimbrici, p. 54. Hamb. 1770, 8vo.) ] The reputation of Cujacius, Donel-lus, Govea, Balduinus, Contius, Hotman, and many other great names, elevated the French schools of law beyond all competition: their celebrity however was at length eclipsed by the more modern universities of Holland; and our countrymen then resorted to Leyden and Utrecht, instead of Bourges and Toulouse. Craig, as we are informed, completed his academical studies in France, and he has himself made more than one allusion to his connexion with the university of Paris. But at Paris the civil law was not then publicly taught; and it is scarcely to be doubted that he repaired to some other university, in order to acquire a branch of knowledge which was then regarded as indispensable to a lawyer. His skill in the civil and the canon law was united with great proficiency in classical learning, for which we may conjecture that he was in no small degree indented to the disèûĩljpe of Paris, where philological studies were then cultiůat’çd with very eminent success.

Craig, having reached a vigorous manhood, was admitted an advocate in the month of February 1563. In the year 1564 he was appointed the deputy of the justice general, Archibald earl of Argyle. It belonged to his office to try the highest offences; and his name very frequently occurs in the criminal records of that period, which have lately been rendered more accessible by the labours of Mr Pitcairn. This distinguished lawyer appears to have steered a prudent course, in the midst of that turbulence and those disorders which prevailed in Scotland during a great part of his life: he appears to have devoted himself with great assiduity to the studies and duties of his profession, and, shunning the dangerous path of political ambition, to have sought a more pleasing solace of the mind in his ’ recreations with the Muses. Hė published Several Latin poems, which were afterwards inscrted’in the Deli-tiae Poetarum Scotorum, and which are allowed to evin ’ ce no mean portion of poetical spirit.^[7. “Thoma? Craigius Scotus, dum epicis regnatricem domum prosequitur, mortalitati se subducit.” (Borrichii Dissertationes Academicae de Poetis, p. 151. Francof. 1883, 4to.) Of his literary attainments Dempster speaks in the mo3t favourable terms: “Nobili utriusque linguae cognitione imbutus, magna lectionis varietate, judicio summo, comitate mirabili, ut uno verbo dicam, eruditissimis criticis aut jurisconsultis in Europa conferendus.” ] His earliest publicatiôń bears the title of “Henrici illustrissimi Ducis Alban⅛, Comitis Rossiae, &c. et Mariae serenissimae Scotorum Reginae Epithalamium.” Impressum Edinburgi per Robertum Lekprevik, 1565, 8vo. This poem, relating to a very inauspicious subject, is not inserted in the collection. Here we find another poem, entitled “Jacobi serenissimi Scotorum Principis, Ducis Rotheèaiae, Genethliacum,” which must likewise have been printed, although we have hot been able to trace it, in a separate form. ’

A few years after he wad called to the bar, hè married Helen, the daughter of Heriot of Trabroun in the county of Haddington. His wife was probably the cousin'of Buchanan, whose mother, Agnes Heriot, belonged to the same family. At the age of thirty-four, his eldest son, Sir Lewis Craig, was raised to the bench in February 1604 by the title of Lord Wrightslands.^[8. Brunton & Haig’s Historical Account of the Senators of the College of Justice, p. 244. Edinb. 1832, 8vo. ] It was then customary for the judges to wear their hats on the bench; blit whenever Craig had occasion to plead before his son, the latter sat uncovered, and listened to him with filial reverence. We may reasonably Suppose that the Same interest which bad raised the son, might as ’ easily have raised the father to the bench; but the modesty of his disposition perhaps led him to prefer a less elevated station;^[9. “Ipse vero,” says Dempster, “ut alter Maecenas, cum summa posset capessere, mediocribus fuit contentus, et advocationis munus quam sustinuit feliciter, quam meruit submisse.” (Historia Ecclesiastica Gentis Scotorum, p. 197∙ Bononiae, 1827, 4to.) ] nor is it improbable that the salary of a judge would not have exceeded the emoluments of his extensive practice, added to those of his different appointments. He is not mentioned as the deputy of the justice general after the close of the year 1573: in the course of the following year he appears as sheriff of Edinburgh; and he is supposed to have resigned the one office on being nominated to the other. At a much later period, namely in 1606, he is described as advocate of the church. And this seems to complete the catalogue of his regular preferments, but we likewise find his name inserted in occasional commissions of importance.

The greatest of his literary labours was his treatise on the feudal law. Such an undertaking was at that period attended with many difficulties. The municipal law had not received any considerable degree of cultivation: systematic treatises it possessed few or none; written authorities of every kind were scanty and inaccessible; and the collecting of materials must therefore have been not a little tedious and laborious. The feudal law, in its general principles, was taught in the foreign universities as a necessary' branch of jurisprudence, and the foreign lawyers, particularly those of Italy and France, had published a great variety of works on the subject; but it was Craig’s special object to illustrate the principles of that law as they had been applied and modified in his native country, and in this department he was without a model and without a precursor. It is not therefore surprising, though it may justly be regretted, that he was unable to amass such [7:7:442]a stock of materials as prepared him for throwing a clear and steady light on the progress of feudal rights and tenures from the earliest times. The character of his work is likewise affected by his patriotic zeal to facilitate the union of the two kingdoms, by assimilating their national laws and customs. “Sir Thomas Craig,” says another able jurist, “who is always instructive when he describes the feudal customs of his own times, is seldom so when he goes back into history.”^[10. Stuart’s Observations concerning the Public Law, and the Constitutional History of Scotland, p. 163. Edinb. 1779, 8vo. ] This remark of Dr Stuart may perhaps appear sufficiently just and discriminating. The value and importance of Craig’s Jus Feudale is admitted by every competent judge, nor has it been superseded by any subsequent treatise: with the exception of Bruce’s compendium, no professed work on the same subject has since made its appearance.^[11. Principia Juris Feudalis, auctore Alexandro Brussio, JCto. Edinb. 1713, 8vo. ] The author was evidently a man of superior talents, as well as of extensive learning; and it may perhaps be affirmed, without much hazard of refutation, that no other Scotish lawyer can so safely be brought into comparison with Lord Stair.

Craig did not. himself commit his elaborate work to the press; and indeed the printing of any treatise on the law of Scotland seems then to have been considered as almost entirely out of the question. Nearly half a century after the author’s death, it was published by Robert Burnet, who had married his grand-daughter. “Jus Feudale, tribus Jibris comprehensum; quibus non solum Consuetudines Feudales, et Praediorum Jura, quae in Scotia, Anglia, et plerisque Galliae locis obtinent, continentur, sed universum Jus Scoticum, et omnes fere materiae juris clare et dilucide exponuntur, et ad Fontes Juris Feudalis et Civilis singula reducuntur.” Edinb. 1655, fol. Some copies bear the imprint of London. The editor has prefixed a preface, in which he speaks with learning and judgment of the author and his work. After a long interval appeared another edition, “cum praefatione Lüderi Menckellii, JCti.” Lipsiae, 1716, 4to. This was speedily followed by the latςst and best edition; “editio tertia, prioribus multo emendation, opera et studio Jacobi Baillie, Advocati.” Edinb. 1732, fol. Prefixed is an excellent portrait of the author, together with a short account of his life; and the typography of the edition is greatly superior to that of the other two. Of this work there are two manuscript copies in the Advocates Library, and likewise two copies of “A Compend or Breviarie of the most substantiell Poynts relating to the Law: extracted forth of the bookes of that learned jurisconsult D. T. C. treating upon the Feudall Law.”

Another ample and elaborate work, undertaken about the same period, is his treatise entitled “De Jure Successionis Regni Angliae libri duo, adversus Sophismata cu-jusdam personati Dolomanni, quibus non solum Jura Successionis in Regnis, sed etiam ipsorum Regum sacro-sanc-tam Authoritatem nititur evertere.” Under-the assumed name of Dolman, Robert Parsons had in the year 1594 published “A Conference about the next Succession to the Crown of England ;” in which he chiefly aimed at superseding the claims of a protestant successor to Queen Elizabeth. Although he did not proceed on the same philosophical principles, he arrived at a similar conclusion with Buchanan; namely, that all political power is derived from the people, and that the consent of the governed is an essential ingredient in all legitimate governments. The right of resisting kings was boldly taught by other Jesuits, and particularly by Mariana, well known as the historian of Spain ∙,^[12. Joannis Marianae Hispani, e Soc. lesu, de liege et llegis Institutione libri III. ad Philippum III. Hispaniae Regem Catholicum. Toleti, 1599, 4to—The zeal of .Mariana, as the reader may easily conjecture, is only directed agâinst heretical kings. ] but all their better speculations are mingled with Jesuitical notions of priestly power. Craig, adhering to the prevalent doctrines respecting the divine right of kings and the passive obedience of subjects, has at great length discussed the subject of regal succession and authority. Such a production cannot now be regarded as of much importance; but of so able a man, intimately acquainted with history, and with jurisprudence in all its branches, the labour could not be entirely fruitless. Parsons was likewise refuted by Peter Wentworth, Sir John Hayward, and other English writers.

King James succeeded very quietly to the throne of England, and the original of Craig’s treatise De Jure Successionis it was not thought necessary to publish. Various manuscripts of it have however been preserved: one belongs to the Advocates Library, another to the University Library, and a third to the writer of this brief notice. The second of these Gatherer describes as the original manuscript. The author’s doctrines were afterwards found very palatable by the Jacobites; and the design of printing the work was formed by Dr Monro, who was principal of the university of Edinburgh at the period of the Revolution. He lost his preferments in the church and the university, and being otherwise involved in the troubles of his party, he did not live to carry this design into execution. From the transcript which he had procured, a translation was however made by his friend James Gatherer, who, before the Revolution, had been parson of Kilmauns in Ayrshire, and who having at length become a bishop among the non-jurors, died in the month of February 1733.^[13. See Dr Russell’s edition of Keith’s Historical Catalogue of the. Scottish Bishops, p. 531. Edinb. 1824, 8vo. ] One biographer has been too liberal in conferring upon him, and upon divers other divines, the degree of doctor. This translation bears the title of “The Right of Succession to the Kingdom of England, in two books, against the Sophisms of Parsons the Jesuite, who assum’d the counterfeit name of Doleman; by which he endeavours to overthrow not only the Rights of Succession in Kingdoms, but also the sacred Authority of Kings themselves: written originally in Latin about 100 years since, by the eminently learned and judicious Sir Thomas Craig of Riccartoun, the celebrated author of the Jus Feudale, and now faithfully translated into English, with a large index of the contents, and a preface by the translator, giving an account of the author and his adversary.” Lond. 1703, fol.

Of a similar denomination is Craig’s work entitled “De Unione Regnorum Britanniae Tractatus ;” which relates to a subject of great interest to his contemporaries, and which is written with the author’s usual learning and ability. “In point of matter and style,” says Mr Tytler, “in the importance of the subject to which it relates, the variety of historical illustrations, the sagacity of the political remarks, and the insight into the mutual interests of the two countries which it exhibits, it perhaps deserves to rank the highest of all his works.”^[14. Tytler’s Account of the Life and Writings of Sir Thomas Craig, p. 294. Edinb. 1823, 12ιno. ] This treatise has never been printed; but a manuscript, extending to 264 pages in folio, is preserved in the Advocates Library. On the same subject two Latin disquisitions were published by Robert Pont, D.D. who was at once anofficiatingeJergyman, and a judge in the supreme court; and by David Hume of Godscroft, who is well known for his other writings in prose and verse. Craig performed another patriotic task [7:7:443]by preparing a work which bears the following title: “De Hominio Disputatio adversus eos qui Scotiam Feudum Ligium Angliae, Regemque Scotorum eo nomine Homi-nium Anglo debere asserunt.” This work is likewise preserved in manuscript in the same great library; but long after the death of the author, a translation of it was published under the title of “Scotland’s Sovereignty asserted: being a dispute’ concerning Homage, against those who maintain that Scotland is a Feu or Fee-Liege of England, and that therefore the King of Scots owes Homage to the King of England, &c. translated from the Latin manuscript; and a preface added, with a short account of the learned author, and a confutation of that homage said to be performed by Malcolm III. King of Scotland, to Edward the Confessor, lately found in the ar-chieves of England, and published in a single sheet by Mr Rymer, the King’s Historiographer: by Geo. Ridpath.” Lond. 1695, 8vo. Craig had vindicated the independence of the Scotish monarchy against the imputations of the English historians, particularly Holinshed, or his coadjutor Harrison; and the more recent attempt of Rymer is allowed to have been sufficiently repelled by Ridpath, who has shewn that the supposed form of ancient homage bears several unequivocal marks of forgery. His publication was however followed by Atwood’s “Superiority and direct Dominion of the Crown of England over the Crown and Kingdom of Scotland, asserted against Sir Thomas Craig.” Lond. 1704, 8vo. This book was refuted by Anderson in 1705; and the superiority of the crown of England was re-asserted by Atwood in the course of the same year.

Archbishop Nicoson mentions an historical production of the same learned author. “I have likewise seen an abstract of a book on the same subject, by Master Tho. Craig, the great civilian, entitled De Scotorum Origine; but where the book it self may be found, I '∙,now not.”^[15. Nicoson’s Scottish Historical Library, p. 15. Lond. 1702, 8vo.—This learned prelate, who was successively bishop of Carlisle and Derry, and archbishop of Cashel, has frequently mentioned Craig in terms of high commendation. “I do still profess my self,” he elsewhere remarks, “to have an extraordinary veneration and esteem for the memory of that excellent writer, and can therefore very readily aliow Mr Atwood to call him a favourite author. Such, 1 do acknowledge, he is with me; and ’ tis not impossible but I may, in the warmth of my affection, have express’d a more kind opinion of his performances, than my nicer adversary thinks he deserves.” (Leges Marchiarum, or Border Laws, pref. Lond. 1705, 8vo.) ] And here we complete the enumeration of his writings in prose.

Towards the elbse of his life, he again indulged his poetical vein. He wrote some commendatory verses, which are prefixed to Thomas Jack’s “Onomastico Poeticum.” Edinb. 1592, 4to. And seven years later, he wrote a short elegy on the death of Rollock, which, with many similar contributions, is subjoined to George Robertson’s “Vitae et Mortis D. Roberti Rolloci Scoti Narratio.” Edinb. 1599, 8vo. During one and the same year, he published three different poems. “Ad sereniss. et potentiss. Principem Iacobum Sextum, e sua Scotia decedentem, Parae-netico.” Excudebat Robertus Waldegrave, 1603, 4to. “Ad serenissimum Britanniarum Principem Henricum, e Scotia discedentem, Propemptico.” Edinburgi excudebat Robertus Charteris, 1603, 4to. “Serenissimi et invictissimi Principis, Iacobi Britanniarum et Galliarum Regis, Srspavopog/a.” Excudebat Robertus Charteris, 1603, 4 to.

In the year 1604, Craig was nominated among the Scotish commissioners empowered to treat respecting the projected union of the two kingdoms. One of his associates was Sir John Skene, who had likewise contributed to illustrate the jurisprudence of his native country. The Scotish and the English commissioners met at Westmin ster, but it is well known that their deliberations were not attended with any important consequences. Many prejudices were to subside, and many fierce contentions'to be assuaged, before this great and salutary measure could be accomplished. This visit afforded him an' òpportunity of cultivating an acquaintance with Camden, and other learned men; and the king bestowed upon him one of those honours which at that time, as well as at the present time, had begun to be held in little estimation on account of their indiscriminate distribution. James determined to elevate him to the rank of knighthood; but instead of aspiring to this distinction, he secretly withdrew himself, in order to avoid the intended ceremony'·. The king however commanded that he should be styled and reputed a knight; and accordingly his name is generally accompanied with a title which he himself had no wish to assume.

Sir Thomas Craig died on the 26th of February 1608. His death was bewailed in Latin verse by his learned countryman Dempster, who, like himself, was a poet as well as a lawyer. He left behind him an estimable character and a fair estate. He is celebrated for his liberal style of hospitality, and, what is of higher moment, for his zealous adherence to the protestant faith. He had four sons and three daughters. Sir Lewis Craig, whom we have already mentioned as his eldest son, died in the year 1622. The second, James Craig of Castle-Craig and Craigston in the kingdom of Ireland, was killed during the insurrection of 1641; and dying without issue, he bequeathed his estates to his next brother, John Craig, an eminent physician. Gassendi informs us that in the year 1592 Craig, a Scotish physician, published a tract against Tycho Brahe, under the title of “Capnuraniae Restinctio, seu, Cometarum in Aethera Sublimationis Refutatio;” and that an answer to it was written by Christianus Longomontanus.^[16. Gassendi Vita Tyćhonis Brahei, p. 154. 183. Paris. 1654, 4to. See likewise Dr Ward’s Lives of the Professors of Gresham College, p. 120. Lond. 1740, fol. ] The Danish astronomer himself published a “Responsio Apologetica ad quondam Scotum, Aristote-licum Philosophum, et Medicum Galenicum.” This is supposed to have been the third son, Dr Craig, who was successively physician in ordinary to King James, and first physician to King Charles. The youngest son was Robert Craig, whose son acquired by marriage the estate of Ramorgnie in Fifeshire. Margaret, the eldest daughter of Sir Thomas, became the wife of Sir Alexander Gibson of Durie; and from this marriage is descended the present possessor of the estate of Riccarton, Sir James Gibson Craig, Bart. Elizabeth, his second daughter, married James Johnston of Warriston; and their son Sir Archibald Johnston acted a conspicuous part in the proceedings of his own unhappy times: their daughter Rachel was married to Robert Burnet of Crimond, a judge in the court of session, and the father of Gilbert Burnet, the celebrated bishop of Salisbury. Craig’s third daughter, Janet, was married to John Belches of Tofts, and their son Sir Alexander Belches was likewise raised to the bench. . (x.)