The 1824 Calcutta School-Book Society Arabic and Persian edition of Euclid's \textit{Elements}: an unusual approach to textbook production in colonial India

History of Greek and Roman mathematics (01A20) History of mathematics in the Golden Age of Islam (01A30) History of mathematics in the 19th century (01A55)

Review text

In his chapter, the author examines the 1824 Arabic and Persian editions of Euclid's \textit{Elements} published by the Calcutta School-Book Society (CSBS) as an illustrative example of the educational and ideological tensions in colonial India during the early nineteenth century. The publication of these editions must be understood within the broader context of the Anglicist-Orientalist debate over native education, a debate that shaped British colonial policy for decades. While Anglicists argued for the imposition of English-language instruction and Western knowledge, the Orientalists advocated a syncretic approach, incorporating Western sciences into traditional Indian and Islamic learning structures.\N\NThe CSBS, established in 1817, played a crucial role in disseminating textbooks in both English and local languages. As the author notes, the Society aimed ``to support the preparation, publication, and cheap or gratuitous supply of \dots suitable books of instruction for the use of Native Schools, in the several languages, (English as well as Asiatic,) which are, or may be taught in the provinces\dots (p.~228). Within this framework, the Society published a geometry textbook based on an Arabic recension of Euclid's \textit{Elements} -- the \textit{Taḥrīr Kitāb Uṣūl al-Handasa li-Uqlīdis} -- originally composed by the prominent thirteenth-century Persian polymath Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī. The Arabic edition was prepared by Reverend Thomas T. Thomason, a chaplain of the British East India Company in Calcutta. Rather than translating a European textbook directly into Arabic, Thomason preferred to edit al-Ṭūsī's \textit{Taḥrīr}, attempting to strip it of ``later accretions, and retain what he considered the ``pure Euclidean content (p.~229). Thomason's motivation for using al-Ṭūsī's work stemmed not only from pedagogical efficiency but also from his belief that referring to a figure such as al-Ṭūsī -- ``whose compositions in Geometry, Astronomy, and Natural Philosophy have ranked him amongst the most eminent authors in the annals of Arabic literature -- would lend credibility to the endeavor and facilitate cultural acceptance (p.~235).\N\NThe Persian translation/edition accompanying the Arabic edition was prepared by Hydur Alee, an Indian scholar with expertise in the mathematical sciences; nevertheless we do not know a lot of about him (p.~231). This translation was not based on the existing Persian version by Quṭb al-Dīn al-Shīrāzī, but rather on Thomason's edited Arabic text. According to the author, this choice was likely deliberate: Hydur Alee's traditional Islamic education and lack of exposure to British mathematical textbooks such as those of Simson or Playfair enabled a faithful rendering of Thomason's Euclidean core without inadvertently reintroducing elements that Thomason had consciously removed (p.~237). The author provides an extensive analysis of the editorial strategies adopted by Thomason. His stated aim was to provide ``a revised copy of [al- Ṭūsī's] work\dots\ stripped of its appendages, that is, of all that is not Euclid's\dots\ as far as the end of the sixth book (p.~236). However, the execution was inconsistent. Thomason often retained commentary and editorial notes introduced by al-Ṭūsī, particularly those that aligned with European commentaries or instructional objectives. For instance, he preserved explanatory remarks on different geometric scenarios that mirrored additions found in English textbooks by Simson and Playfair (pp.~241--246). In some cases, Thomason's editing also altered definitions in al-Ṭūsī's text (generally found in the original Greek) to conform with Western norms, such as replacing the classical definition of a straight line with the more modern formulation: ``a straight line is the shortest distance between two points (p.~238).\N\NMoreover, Thomason integrated additional propositions and corollaries not found in the original Arabic manuscript but present in European sources. For example, in Book IV, he introduced three new definitions, clearly derived from Simson's edition, which were absent from al-Ṭūsī's \textit{Taḥrīr} (p.~240). These editorial decisions reflect not only a desire to reconcile the Islamic Euclidean tradition with British pedagogical standards, but also an implicit assertion of British epistemological authority over classical Islamic mathematics. Despite these interventions, Thomason expressed a genuine interest in providing Indian students [``native students] with a scientifically rigorous introduction to geometry. His aim, as he stated in his letter to the CSBS president, was to guide students ``from the porch into the temple of science (p.~236). Yet his views on Indian society were far from progressive. In a letter home, he lamented the ``close intercourse with the wretched natives, who are more degraded than you can imagine, and insisted that he and his wife never allowed their children to be alone with native servants, fearing moral contamination (p.~230-231).\N\NThe article under review reveals, in a very good manner, how the 1824 editions of Euclid were not merely educational tools, but also ideological instruments. By editing al-Ṭūsī's \textit{Taḥrīr} to align more closely with British mathematical standards while maintaining an Islamic framework for the sake of cultural legitimacy, Thomason created a hybrid text that functioned as a bridge between two epistemic worlds. This approach contrasts starkly with the later Anglicist dominance in Indian education, typified by Macaulay's 1835 Minute, which dismissed native learning entirely. Thus, the CSBS editions represent a final expression of Orientalist engagement before the ascendancy of English-only instruction. In conclusion, the author demonstrates that the 1824 CSBS editions of Euclid's \textit{Elements} reflect both the pedagogical challenges and the cultural politics of colonial India. Thomason's work, while framed as a neutral educational enterprise, was deeply embedded in colonial ideologies and served broader goals of social and epistemic control. As the author concludes, this unusual collaboration between a British missionary and an Indian scholar marks a brief but telling episode in the history of mathematical instruction under empire.\N\NThis article offers valuable insights for historians at large, and for historians of mathematics in particular, by shedding light on the intersections between colonial educational policy and the transmission of mathematical knowledge.\N\NFor the entire collection see [Zbl 1553.01004].

Cites work

This page was built for publication: The 1824 Calcutta School-Book Society Arabic and Persian edition of Euclid's \textit{Elements}: an unusual approach to textbook production in colonial India

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q6999900)