From an old print]
Euclid"s works at once took high rank, and they are mentioned by various cla.s.sical authors. Cicero knew of them, and Capella (_ca._ 470 A.D.), Ca.s.siodorius (_ca._ 515 A.D.), and Boethius (_ca._ 480-524 A.D.) were all more or less familiar with the "Elements." With the advance of the Dark Ages, however, learning was held in less and less esteem, so that Euclid was finally forgotten, and ma.n.u.scripts of his works were either destroyed or buried in some remote cloister. The Arabs, however, whose civilization a.s.sumed prominence from about 750 A.D. to about 1500, translated the most important treatises of the Greeks, and Euclid"s "Elements" among the rest. One of these Arabic editions an English monk of the twelfth century, one Athelhard (aethelhard) of Bath, found and translated into Latin (_ca._ 1120 A.D.). A little later Gherard of Cremona (1114-1187) made a new translation from the Arabic, differing in essential features from that of Athelhard, and about 1260 Johannes Campa.n.u.s made still a third translation, also from Arabic into Latin.[29] There is reason to believe that Athelhard, Campa.n.u.s, and Gherard may all have had access to an earlier Latin translation, since all are quite alike in some particulars while diverging noticeably in others. Indeed, there is an old English verse that relates:
The clerk Euclide on this wyse hit fonde Thys craft of gemetry yn Egypte londe ...
Thys craft com into England, as y yow say, Yn tyme of good Kyng Adelstone"s day.
If this be true, Euclid was known in England as early as 924-940 A.D.
Without going into particulars further, it suffices to say that the modern knowledge of Euclid came first through the Arabic into the Latin, and the first printed edition of the "Elements" (Venice, 1482) was the Campa.n.u.s translation. Greek ma.n.u.scripts now began to appear, and at the present time several are known. There is a ma.n.u.script of the ninth century in the Bodleian library at Oxford, one of the tenth century in the Vatican, another of the tenth century in Florence, one of the eleventh century at Bologna, and two of the twelfth century at Paris.
There are also fragments containing bits of Euclid in Greek, and going back as far as the second and third century A.D. The first modern translation from the Greek into the Latin was made by Zamberti (or Zamberto),[30] and was printed at Venice in 1513. The first translation into English was made by Sir Henry Billingsley and was printed in 1570, sixteen years before he became Lord Mayor of London.
Proclus, in his commentary upon Euclid"s work, remarks:
In the whole of geometry there are certain leading theorems, bearing to those which follow the relation of a principle, all-pervading, and furnishing proofs of many properties. Such theorems are called by the name of _elements_, and their function may be compared to that of the letters of the alphabet in relation to language, letters being indeed called by the same name in Greek [[Greek: stoicheia], stoicheia].[31]
This characterizes the work of Euclid, a collection of the basic propositions of geometry, and chiefly of plane geometry, arranged in logical sequence, the proof of each depending upon some preceding proposition, definition, or a.s.sumption (axiom or postulate). The number of the propositions of plane geometry included in the "Elements" is not entirely certain, owing to some disagreement in the ma.n.u.scripts, but it was between one hundred sixty and one hundred seventy-five. It is possible to reduce this number by about thirty or forty, because Euclid included a certain amount of geometric algebra; but beyond this we cannot safely go in the way of elimination, since from the very nature of the "Elements" these propositions are basic. The efforts at revising Euclid have been generally confined, therefore, to rearranging his material, to rendering more modern his phraseology, and to making a book that is more usable with beginners if not more logical in its presentation of the subject. While there has been an improvement upon Euclid in the art of bookmaking, and in minor matters of phraseology and sequence, the educational gain has not been commensurate with the effort put forth. With a little modification of Euclid"s semi-algebraic Book II and of his treatment of proportion, with some scattering of the definitions and the inclusion of well-graded exercises at proper places, and with attention to the modern science of bookmaking, the "Elements"
would answer quite as well for a textbook to-day as most of our modern subst.i.tutes, and much better than some of them. It would, moreover, have the advantage of being a cla.s.sic,--somewhat the same advantage that comes from reading Homer in the original instead of from Pope"s metrical translation. This is not a plea for a return to the Euclid text, but for a recognition of the excellence of Euclid"s work.
The distinctive feature of Euclid"s "Elements," compared with the modern American textbook, is perhaps this: Euclid begins a book with what seems to him the easiest proposition, be it theorem or problem; upon this he builds another; upon these a third, and so on, concerning himself but little with the cla.s.sification of propositions. Furthermore, he arranges his propositions so as to construct his figures before using them. We, on the other hand, make some little attempt to cla.s.sify our propositions within each book, and we make no attempt to construct our figures before using them, or at least to prove that the constructions are correct.
Indeed, we go so far as to study the properties of figures that we cannot construct, as when we ask for the size of the angle of a regular heptagon. Thus Euclid begins Book I by a problem, to construct an equilateral triangle on a given line. His object is to follow this by problems on drawing a straight line equal to a given straight line, and cutting off from the greater of two straight lines a line equal to the less. He now introduces a theorem, which might equally well have been his first proposition, namely, the case of the congruence of two triangles, having given two sides and the included angle. By means of his third and fourth propositions he is now able to prove the _pons asinorum_, that the angles at the base of an isosceles triangle are equal. We, on the other hand, seek to group our propositions where this can conveniently be done, putting the congruent propositions together, those about inequalities by themselves, and the propositions about parallels in one set. The results of the two arrangements are not radically different, and the effect of either upon the pupil"s mind does not seem particularly better than that of the other. Teachers who have used both plans quite commonly feel that, apart from Books II and V, Euclid is nearly as easily understood as our modern texts, if presented in as satisfactory dress.
The topics treated and the number of propositions in the plane geometry of the "Elements" are as follows:
Book I. Rectilinear figures 48 Book II. Geometric algebra 14 Book III. Circles 37 Book IV. Problems about circles 16 Book V. Proportion 25 Book VI. Applications of proportion 33 ---- 173
Of these we now omit Euclid"s Book II, because we have an algebraic symbolism that was unknown in his time, although he would not have used it in geometry even had it been known. Thus his first proposition in Book II is as follows:
If there be two straight lines, and one of them be cut into any number of segments whatever, the rectangle contained by the two straight lines is equal to the rectangles contained by the uncut straight line and each of the segments.
This amounts to saying that if _x_ = _p_ + _q_ + _r_ + , then _ax_ = _ap_ + _aq_ + _ar_ + . We also materially simplify Euclid"s Book V. He, for example, proves that "If four magnitudes be proportional, they will also be proportional alternately." This he proves generally for any kind of magnitude, while we merely prove it for numbers having a common measure. We say that we may subst.i.tute for the older form of proportion, namely,
_a_ : _b_ = _c_ : _d_,
the fractional form _a_/_b_ = _c_/_d_.
From this we have _ad_ = _bc_.
Whence _a_/_c_ = _b_/_d_.
In this work we a.s.sume that we may multiply equals by _b_ and _d_. But suppose _b_ and _d_ are cubes, of which, indeed, we do not even know the approximate numerical measure; what shall we do? To Euclid the multiplication by a cube or a polygon or a sphere would have been entirely meaningless, as it always is from the standpoint of pure geometry. Hence it is that our treatment of proportion has no serious standing in geometry as compared with Euclid"s, and our only justification for it lies in the fact that it is easier. Euclid"s treatment is much more rigorous than ours, but it is adapted to the comprehension of only advanced students, while ours is merely a confession, and it should be a frank confession, of the weakness of our pupils, and possibly, at times, of ourselves.
If we should take Euclid"s Books II and V for granted, or as sufficiently evident from our study of algebra, we should have remaining only one hundred thirty-four propositions, most of which may be designated as basal propositions of plane geometry. Revise Euclid as we will, we shall not be able to eliminate any large number of his fundamental truths, while we might do much worse than to adopt these one hundred thirty-four propositions _in toto_ as the bases, and indeed as the definition, of elementary plane geometry.
=Bibliography.= Heath, The Thirteen Books of Euclid"s Elements, 3 vols., Cambridge, 1908; Frankland, The First Book of Euclid, Cambridge, 1906; Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, article Eukleides; Simon, Euclid und die sechs planimetrischen Bucher, Leipzig, 1901; Gow, History of Greek Mathematics, Cambridge, 1884, and any of the standard histories of mathematics. Both Heath and Simon give extensive bibliographies. The latest standard Greek and Latin texts are Heiberg"s, published by Teubner of Leipzig.
FOOTNOTES:
[23] Riccardi, Saggio di una bibliografia Euclidea, Part I, p. 3, Bologna, 1887. Riccardi lists well towards two thousand editions.
[24] Hermotimus of Colophon and Philippus of Mende.
[25] Literally, "Who closely followed the first," i.e. the first Ptolemy.
[26] Menaechmus is said to have replied to a similar question of Alexander the Great: "O King, through the country there are royal roads and roads for common citizens, but in geometry there is one road for all."
[27] This is also shown in a letter from Archimedes to Eratosthenes, recently discovered by Heiberg.
[28] On this phase of the subject, and indeed upon Euclid and his propositions and works in general, consult T. L. Heath, "The Thirteen Books of Euclid"s Elements," 3 vols., Cambridge, 1908, a masterly treatise of which frequent use has been made in preparing this work.
[29] A contemporary copy of this translation is now in the library of George A. Plimpton, Esq., of New York. See the author"s "Rara Arithmetica," p. 433, Boston, 1909.
[30] A beautiful vellum ma.n.u.script of this translation is in the library of George A. Plimpton, Esq., of New York. See the author"s "Rara Arithmetica," p. 481, Boston, 1909.
[31] Heath, loc. cit., Vol. I, p. 114.
CHAPTER VI
EFFORTS AT IMPROVING EUCLID
From time to time an effort is made by some teacher, or a.s.sociation of teachers, animated by a serious desire to improve the instruction in geometry, to prepare a new syllabus that shall mark out some "royal road," and it therefore becomes those who are interested in teaching to consider with care the results of similar efforts in recent years. There are many questions which such an attempt suggests: What is the real purpose of the movement? What will the teaching world say of the result?
Shall a reckless, ill-considered radicalism dominate the effort, bringing in a distasteful terminology and symbolism merely for its novelty, insisting upon an ultralogical treatment that is beyond the powers of the learner, rearranging the subject matter to fit some narrow notion of the projectors, seeking to emasculate mathematics by looking only to the applications, riding some little hobby in the way of some particular cla.s.s of exercises, and cutting the number of propositions to a minimum that will satisfy the mere demands of the artisan? Such are some of the questions that naturally arise in the mind of every one who wishes well for the ancient science of geometry.
It is not proposed in this chapter to attempt to answer these questions, but rather to a.s.sist in understanding the problem by considering the results of similar attempts. If it shall be found that syllabi have been prepared under circ.u.mstances quite as favorable as those that obtain at present, and if these syllabi have had little or no real influence, then it becomes our duty to see if new plans may be worked out so as to be more successful than their predecessors. If the older attempts have led to some good, it is well to know what is the nature of this good, to the end that new efforts may also result in something of benefit to the schools.
It is proposed in this chapter to call attention to four important syllabi, setting forth briefly their distinguishing features and drawing some conclusions that may be helpful in other efforts of this nature.
In England two noteworthy attempts have been made within a century, looking to a more satisfactory sequence and selection of propositions than is found in Euclid. Each began with a list of propositions arranged in proper sequence, and each was thereafter elaborated into a textbook.
Neither accomplished fully the purpose intended, but each was instrumental in provoking healthy discussion and in improving the texts from which geometry is studied.
The first of these attempts was made by Professor Augustus de Morgan, under the auspices of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and it resulted in a textbook, including "plane, solid, and spherical"
geometry, in six books. According to De Morgan"s plan, plane geometry consisted of three books, the number of propositions being as follows:
Book I. Rectilinear figures 60 Book II. Ratio, proportion, applications 69 Book III. The circle 65 ---- Total for plane geometry 194
Of the 194 propositions De Morgan selected 114 with their corollaries as necessary for a beginner who is teaching himself.
In solid geometry the plan was as follows:
Book IV. Lines in different planes, solids contained by planes 52 Book V. Cylinder, cone, sphere 25 Book VI. Figures on a sphere 42 ---- Total for solid geometry 119
Of these 119 propositions De Morgan selected 76 with their corollaries as necessary for a beginner, thus making 190 necessary propositions out of 305 desirable ones, besides the corollaries in plane and solid geometry. In other words, of the desirable propositions he considered that about two thirds are absolutely necessary.
It is interesting to note, however, that he summed up the results of his labors by saying: