Hist of sci. - Spec. Then 9-19-37 34691 ÞR E À CE. THE Opinions of the Moderns concerning the Author of name, are very different and contrary to one another. Peter Ramus ascribes the Propositions, as well as their Demonstrations, to Theon; others think the Propositions to be Euclid's, but that the Demonstrations are Theon's ; and others maintain that all the Propositions and their Demonstrations are Euclid's own. John Buteo and Sir Henry Savile are the Authors of greatest Note who affert this last, and the greater part of Geometers have ever since been of this Opinion, as they thought it the most probable. Sir Henry Savile, after the several Arguments he brings to prove it, makes this Conclusion (Page 13. Praelect.) “ That, excepting a very few “ Interpolations, Explications, and Additions, Theon altered “nothing in Euclid.” But, by often considering and comparing together the Definitions and Demonstrations as they are in the Greek Editions we now have, I found that Theon, or whoever was the Editor of the present Greek Text, by adding some things, fuppressing others, and mixing his own with Euclid's Demonstrations, had changed more things to the worse than is commonly supposed, and those not of Imall moment, especially in the Fifth and Eleventh Books of the Elements, which this Editor has greatly vitiated; for instance, by substituting a shorter, but insufficient Demonftration of the 18th Prop. of the 5th Book, in place of the legitimate one which Euclid had given ; and by taking out of this Books besides other things, the good Definition which Eudoxus or Euclid had given of Compound Ratio, and giving an absurd one in place of it in the 5th Definition of the oth Book, which neither Euclid, Archimedes, Appollonius, nor any Geometer before Theon's time, ever made use of, and of which there is not to be found the least appearance in any of their Writings; and, as this Definition did much embarass Beginners, and is quite useless, it is now thrown out of the Elements, and another, which without doubt Euclid had given, is put in its proper place among the Definitions of the gth 5th Book, by which the Doctrine of Compound Ratios is rendered plain and easy. Besides, among the Definitions of the 11th Book, there is this, which is the 10th, viz. “ Equal “ and Gimilar solid Figures are those which are contained by « similar Planes of the fame Number and Magnitude.” Now, this Propofition is a Theorem, not a Definition ; because the equality of Figures of any kind must be demonstrated, and not affumed ; and, therefore, though this were a true Proposition, it ought to have been demonstrated. But indeed this Propofition, which makes the roth Definition of the uth Book, is not true universally, except in the case in which each of the solid Angles of the Figures is contained by no more than three plane Angles; for, in other Cases, two folid Figures may be contained by similar Planes of the fame Number and Magnitude, and yet be unequal to one another; as shall be made evident in the Notes fubjoined to these Elements. In like manner, in the Demonstration of the 26th Prop. of the rith Book, it is taken for granted, that those folid Angles are equal to one another which are contained by plain Angles of the fame Number and Magnitude, placed in the same Order ; but neither is this universally true, except in the case in which the solid Angles are contained by no more than three plain Angles; nor of this Case is there any Demonstration in the Elements we now have, though it be quite necessary there should be one. Now, upon the roth Definition of this Book depend the 25th and 28th Propositions of it; and, upon the 25th and 26th depend other eight, viz. the 27th, 31st, 32d, 33d, 34th, 36th, 37th, and 40th of the fame Book; and the 12th of the 12th Book depends upon the eighth of the same, and this 8th, and the Corollary of Proposition 17th, and Prop. 18th of the 12th Book, depend upon the 9th Definition of the Ith Book, which is not a right Definition ; because there may be Solids contained by the same number of similar plane Figures, which are not similar to one another, in the true Sense of Similarity received by all Geometers; and all thefe Propofitions have, for these Reafons, been insufficiently demonstrated fince Theon's time hitherto. Besides, there are several other things, which have nothing of Euclid's Accuracy, and which plainly shew, that his Elements have been much corrupted by unskil ful Geometers; and, though these are not so grofs as the others now mentioned, they ought by no means to remain uncorrected. Upon these Accounts it appeared necessary, and I hope will prove acceptable to all Lovers of accurate Reasoning, and of M. Mathematical Learning, to remove such Blemishes, and re- In this fifth Edition, Ptolemy's Proposition concerning a Pro- To which are also added, the Elements of Plane and Spherical Trigonometry, which are commonly taught after the Elements of Euclid. a |