todgaon 7-5.39 38627 T THE Opinions of the Moderns concerning the Author of the Elements of Geometry which go under Euclid's 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 Euteo and Sir Henry Savile are the Authors of greatest Note who alert this laft, 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 (Pag. 13. Praelect.) “ That excepting a very few Interpolations, Explicati ons and Additions, I heon 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, fupprefing others, and mixing his own with Euclid's Demonstrations, had changed more things to the worse than is commonly supposed, and those not of small moment, especally in the Fifth and Eleventh Books of the Elements, which this Editor has greatly vitiated. for instance, by fabflituting a shorter, but insufficient Demonstration of the 18th Prop. of the 5th Book, in place of the legitimate one which Euclid had given ; and by taking out of this Book, besides other things, the good Definition which Eudoxus or Euclid bad given of Compound Ratio, and giving an absurd one in place of it in the 5th Definition of the 6th Book, which neither Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, 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 embarrass 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 5th Book, by which the Doctrine of Compound Ratios is rendered plain and easy. Besides, among the Definitions of the with Book, there is this, which is the 10th, viz. Equal and similar solid figures are those which are contained by “ similar " similar planes of the same number and magnitude.” Now this Proposition is a Theorem, not a Definition, because the equality of figures of any kind must be demonstrated,' and not aisumed. and therefore, tho' this were a true Propofition, it ought to have been demonstrated. But indeed this Proposition, which makes the roth Definition of the Ith 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 thall be made evident in the No:es fubjoined to these Elements. In like man . ner, in the Demonftration of the 26th Prop. of the i Ith Book, it is taken for granted, that those folid angles are equal to one another which are contained by plane angles of the fame number and magnitude placed in the fame order; but neither is this universally true, except in the case in which the folid angles are contained by no more than three plane angles; nor of this case is there any Demonstration in the Elements we now have, tho' it be quite neceílary there should be one. Now upon the roth Definition of this Book depend the 25th and 28 th Propositions of it; and upon the 25th and 26th depend other cight, viz. the 27th, 31st, 3d, 33d, 34th, 36th, 37th, and 40th of the fame Book. and the 12th of the 12th Book depends upon the 8th of the fame, and this 8th, and the Corollary of Proposition 17th, and Prop. I 8th of the 12th Book depend upon the 9th Definition of the 11th Book, which is not a right Definition, because there may be folids contained by the fame number of similar plane figures, which are not similar unto one another, in the true sense of similarity received by all Geometers. and all these Propositions have, for these reasons, been infufficiently demonstrated since 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 unskilful Geometers. and tho' these are not so gross 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 Mathematical Learning, to remove such blemishes, and restore the principal Books of the Elements to their original Accuracy, as far as I was able ; especially since these Elements are the foundation of a Sci ence ence by which the Investigation and Discovery of useful Truths, at least in Mathematical Learning, is promoted as far as the limited Powers of the Mind allow; and which likewise is of the greatest Use in the Arts both of Peace and War, to many of which Geometry is absolutely necessary. This I have endeavoured to do by taking away the inaccurate and false Reasonings which unskilful Editors have put into the place of some of the genuine Demonstrations of Euclid, who has ever been justly celebrated as the most accurate of Geometers, and by restoring to him those Things which Theon or others have suppressed, and which have these many ages been buried in Oblivion. In this second Edition Ptolomy's Proposition concerning a property of quadrilateral figures in a circle is added at the end of the sixth Book. Also the Note on the 29 th Prop. Book ist is altered, and made more explicit. And a more general Demonstration is given instead of that which was in the Note on the roth Definition of Book 11th. besides the Translation is much amended by the friendly affistance of a learned Gentleman. |