Robert of Chester's (?) redaction of Euclid's Elements, the so-called Adelard II version. Vol. I (Q1339664)

The two volumes under review include the first Latin critical edition of Euclid's Elements, usually attributed to Adelard of Bath. The first volume (pp. 1-430) has a historical analytical introduction, description of the manuscripts as well as the other scholarly apparatus like editorial policy, concordance, bibliography, the text itself, and an index, while the second volume (pp. 431-959) contains the actual critical apparatus. When we remember that the number of manuscripts consulted for that purpose is more than sixty, then we should not be surprised to find the critical apparatus taking a whole volume just to record the variant readings. The text itself, also dubbed as ``version II'' of the Latin translation of Euclid's Elements from Arabic, was apparently the most popular in the Latin west, as the number of manuscripts clearly attests. It was certainly much more frequently used than the other translations attributed to Adelard of Bath (version I), Hermann of Corinthia, and Gerard of Cremona. Marshall Clagett was the first to identify this text as being a second version executed by Adelard of Bath. The present editors subject this identification to very close analysis, and conclude by arguing very convincingly that the text was most likely completed by Robert of Chester, sometime around the year 1140. The oldest extant manuscript dates to the year 1141. The contents of the text seem to have combined the Boethian tradition with the Arabic one as preserved in the translations of Herman and Adelard. Clagett had argued in the fifties that this version II is only an ``abridgment'' of the other versions completed by Adelard. In fact the language of the text does not offer formal proofs as one would have expected, rather it presents schemes for proofs that one could carry out if s/he pleases. As a result, the present editors were forced to raise the question as to whether version II was a translation or a compilation, and had to conclude that it was the latter. In the following section (pp. 18-22), and after comparative analysis of the contents with the known versions of Adelard and Hermann, they conclude that Adelard could not have been the compiler. That leaves Robert of Chester as the most likely candidate. But the question mark following his name in the title reflects the belief of the editors that they could not be certain about that. One of the most interesting features of this text is the heavy use of Arabic in the ``proofs''. This does not only reveal that the translator, whoever he might have been, was quite familiar with Arabic, but that he also expected his readers as well to understand such expressions as elfadhel (al-faḍl) ``remainder'', burrahunnu (burhānuhu) ``its proof'', alamud (al-`amūd) ``perpendicular'', etc. The peculiarity of these terms is that they were not necessarily technical in nature, and could have been translated into Latin rather than transliterated. But for some unknown reason the compiler did not think that he needed to do that. This situation begs the question of the competence of the readers to understand such terms in their transliterated forms, a question never raised by the present editors. Instead they use this evidence to support their argument for the authorship of Robert of Chester, and conclude their introduction with a very short biographical sketch of the same author. In sum, the question of authorship, the heavy use of transliterations of Arabic terms in this version to the exclusion of the others, and the detailed variants and critical apparatus assembled by the present editors should only be considered as opening the doors for much more serious research on the subject. The editors are to be thanked for preparing a solid foundation for such a research.