Il quinto postulato Euclideo da C. Clavio (1589) a G. Saccheri (1733) (Q1056735)

The paper under review continues a former one on the role of the parallel postulate in Clavius (see [Physis 20, 191--212 (1978; Zbl. 438.01001)], the critique is thoroughly justified). In this new study the author tries to show by examining relevant comments and editions of Euclid's ``Elements'' that there is a continuous development in the treatment of the parallel postulate from the 2nd edition of Clavius' work (1589) up to Saccheri's ``Euclides ab omni naevo vindicatus'' (1733). He also wants to illustrate the process of recovering text and meaning of the Elements during the period in question. All this sounds very promising. Alas, if one goes into details, the favourable picture changes completely. The paper contains three major methodological shortcomings. First of all, it suffers from prolixity. A considerable part of the material presented is not pertinent to the theme. On the other hand relevant material, though mentioned in quoted sources, is not considered (so p. 319 Cl. Richard's commentary). The conclusions the author arrives at are often based on insufficient reasonings, sometimes they are mere assertions, and are highly debatable. (2) Jesuitic text book tradition, though most important in scientific teaching during this period, is nowhere mentioned, let alone adequately elaborated. Its study and the comparison with works outside of this tradition should have formed one main point of the paper. (3) The treatment of the source material is more than once very superficial. Only one example! P. 320 speaking of A. Tacquet's ``Elementa geometriae planae et solidae'' the author writes: ''here one clearly finds the influence of Borelli and Vitale Giordano''. He is led to this conclusion by using an edition of Tacquet's book printed in 1701. Yet, Tacquet died 1660, his book dates from 1654, Borelli's work appeared 1658, Vitale Giordano's work in 1680. How does this match? These and other examples of similar kind and also some indications in the bibliography (items [1] and [18]) give the impression that the author just used the books he found at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale of Rome and didn't care to procure further material. Apart from these shortcomings there are a lot of minor ones. It would lead too far to enumerate all. Only one point shall be mentioned in conclusion, because it seems to be significant for the whole procedure followed in this paper: p. 309 the author discusses ``Sex priora Euclidis geometrica elementa'', edited Bologna 1684 by a certain H. R., and adds in footnote that he didn't succeed in solving these initials. H. R. stands for Geminiano (=Hiemyniano) Rondelli (1652--1735). To get the information, you only have to look into Riccardi's bibliography or into one or the other of the great libraries' catalogues. To sum up: an excellent theme hopelessly spoiled. It's a pity.