Remarks on the history of the text of Euclid's Elements (Q1840820): Difference between revisions

Approaching an ancient text may be done in two ways: by a ``method'' involving \textit{direct tradition}, i.e. having in hand the \textit{original} text, and by \textit{indirect tradition}, which means analysis by means of other authors' comments, citations, etc. The text to which the study under review is devoted, \textit{Euclid's Elements}, is essentially one of the most representative ancient works characterized by the -- probably -- richest indirect tradition. Starting with late Antiquity and up to the XVIth century, this text has been thoroughly and in-depth interpreted by scholars in Greek, Latin, Arabian, Syrian, Persian, Armenian and Jewish languages. The study mentions the Klamroth-Heiberg debate on the mediaeval translations of Euclid (starting from the idea of the too extended liberty taken by translators), the former supporting the higher ``purity'' of the Arabian tradition, the latter, on the contrary, claiming that the Arabian tradition is inferior to that of the Greek manuscripts. Another section is devoted to the contribution brought by Wilbur Knorr, then the ideas -- on the same \textit{Elements}' versions -- of Adelard and Gerard de Cremone are put forth. The definitions given in Book I and Book X of Euclid are also discussed in a \textit{polemic} way.