AbO (Abd Allêh Muhqm'mod ibn Mu'êdh ol-Dioiiónï)

the text in focsimile with trqnslo,tion of commentory on rotio of



ter verkriiging von de grood von Doctor in de Wis-


Notuurkunde oon de Riiksuniversi'teit te Leiden, op gezog von de Rector-MogniÍicus Dr B. A. von Groningen, hoogleroor in de Foculteit der Lettèren en Wiisbegeerte, publiek te

verdedigen op Dinsdog 20 Juni 1950

ïe 14 uur



te Heeze (N.


Uitgeverii W. J. von Hengel


L Mothemotics in the scientific civilisotion of



ll. ïhe commentory oÍ ol-Dioiiênï.


Promotor: Prof. Dr J. H.


lll. Other commentories on rqtio.


Duscussion of the diÍÍerent commentories ond evoluotion o{ their purporï.

Chopter ll. Notes on the text. Chopter ll. Noies on the ïronslotion.





Chopiter lV. No'tes.


N.B. ln the tronslite.rotion of Arobic words the following chorocters in order
the Arobic o1phobet'


)btthdi shfqkl

h m

chddhrzssigdlz n w(u) h lfit




l. ln the dork oges, when in our regions the light wos token from the condlestick, o new ond vigorous civiljsotjon orose ond spreod olong the opposite shores of the Mediierroneon ond inlond. Towords the end of the 8th century it begon to ossimilote the scientiÍic ocquisitions oÍ the Greeks, ond in o much lesser degree of the lndions.

Syrion Christions, living in Mesopotomio, lronsloted philosophicol ond.scieniific ïreotises from Greek originols into Arobic. Exploiting the rich possibilities of this longuoge they succeeded in moking jt on odmiroble vehicle for thoughts ond doctrines hitherio olien ond stronge to it. SÀverol o{ these tronslotors were eminent scholors {hemselves. At this time, whel the lslomic civilisotion wos still in the woy of formotion, religious oppositio.ns did not yet ploy o dominont pori. ln ihe course of the 9th century, however, the cultivotion o,f science in the Arobic longuoge become more ond more exclusively fhe

work of Mohommedons, who for the gieoter port were not of the Arobic roce, but descendonts of the inhobitonts of the ierritories in Syrio, Mesopotomio, Egypï ond it seems Persio conquered by the Arobs in the 7th ond 8lh centuries. For this reoson recommen,doble to speok of the "lslomic civilisotion", olthough the term "Arobic cjvilisotion" would be iustiÍied to o cerioin extenï by the common use of fhe Arobic longuoge os o medium of scientiÍic ociiviiy ond inïercourse'


of "the course of Arobion (l). Their results do not cloim ony obsolufe volue but ore striking enough {or giving us on imoge o{ the rise ond Íoll of the scientific tide os íell oi oÍ the muluol proportion of the different bronches of reseorch. The morked predominonce, however, oÍ mothemotics is portly couse.d by the Íocï thot osironomy ond even osirology ore. included. lt is procticolly impossible to seporote these sciences, ot ony rote for the centuries under considerotion. For more detoils oboui the meihod used by the outhors I refer to the originol. Concerning the development oÍ mothe'motics the outhors Íound, with the exception of two discontinuities, o ropid increose beginning in the second holf o{ the 8th cenfury, reoching its climox o century loter ond {ollowed by o slow decline. The discontinuiiies ore: o notoble bockwordness in lhe Íirst holf of the 1Oth century ond o sudden foll obout Íhe middle oÍ the l lth century. The totol imoge connot help suggesiing o
Sorokin ond Merton composed


slotisticol survey

intellectuol development (700 - l3O0 A.D.)"

conspicuous correlotion wifh the odventures of the stote ond its rulers. SuÍfice it to poinl io the rise ond efflorescence of the eoslern Coliphote in the 8th ond 9th ceniury; the period of decoy ond disinÍegrotion o{ter thot; the estoblishment oÍ the Buwoyhid bultonote in the middle oÍ the lOth century ond its downfoll in 1058; ond somewhoi loter the rise of the Goznovid Sultonote, which begon to disintegrote ot obout the some time.

those doys.

lf we did not know it olreody we could gother from oll this thot the protection of o well-estoblished court wos o viÍol condition {or the florescence of science, ot leost in

goes bock to the quodrivium, viz. geomeïry, orithmetic, ,ostronomy. ond music' ,lt views the figuring modern i".ff.t"^iU eorpÈyry qni'not to Aristotle (2). According to

Ghozno ond his son Most 0d. Two distinct trends of mothemoÍicol thought were perceivoble, o more lheoreticol one qnd o more procticol one. From the second holf of the llth century onwords Muslim mothemoticol productivity wos percepïibly reduced. lt is true, o few mothemolicions supplied contributions of high volue, but in the long run no reol push wos left. At lost ihe moin interest seemed to

By woy of survey the íollowing condensed exposition moy be useful. The second holf oí the 8th century sow the beginning of Muslim mothemotics. ïwo (Abbósid coliphs, ol-MonsOr (the 2nd, 754-775), ïhe Íounder oí Bogdod, ond Hór0n ol-Rosiïd (the Sth, 786-809) ore porticulorly notorious os potrons of science. Hindu mofhemotics ond osïronomy (the siddhónto) ployed for some time o prominent port ond ihe tronslotion of Greek moihemoticol treotises wos initioted. ln the first holÍ of the 9ih ceniury rhe cAbbósid coliph ol-Mo)mOn (the zth, Bl3-g33) founded on ocodemy ot Bogdod, the Boit ol-hikmo, which become the centre oÍ ociivity for rhe ironslolors. Trigonometry went through o heydoy; some problems oÍ pure geomeÍry were studied; Euclid wos lronsloted ond commented on; in orithmetic ond olgebro Hindu ond Greek knowledge were combined. ln 'ihe second holf of the 9th century the work wos continued on o higher level. Greek mothemotics were tronslofecl ond studied oll olong the line in o brilliont woy. The first holf of the lOth century wos o time of foll, not so much in quoli'ry os in inlensity. ln the second holf of the lOth century, however, morhemoficol octivity *or run"weá, not only in Bogdod, where it wos siimuloted by the Buwoyhid sultons (Adud ol-Doulo (949-982) ond his son Siorof ol-Doulo (982-989), but now olso in Cordovo, porticulorly under the potronoge of its 9rh Umoiiod coliph ol-Hokom ll (9ól-976). The number oÍ originol contributions increosed in oll bronches. The first holf oÍ the I lth century sow o continuotion of the eÍflorescence of mothemotics. while spoin's conlribution wos of minor importonce, the Dór ol-hikmo, on ocodemy in Coiro like rhe two cenÍuries older one in Bogdod ond founded by ihe óth Fóiimii, ol-HÓkim, bore its first Íruits. The works of mosl eosiern scientists, olthough considerqble, were olmost eclipsed by those of ol-Bir0nï, who worked ot the court of Mohm0d of


ofostronomyinthisgroupisro.therstronge'However,weshouldbeorinmindthot to be perfectly mothein those doys the motions'of heovenly bod]es were consldered mognitudes' physicol to oppnr"d o, invoriobi" ond indeed, roil*t, circulor twould rother divide purpose V"i, frá+"rrlng o division more odequote to our present ond o reflective sense norrower pori in plr" r"if,Ëmoticol ol*iuity inlo o productive ond reosoning' knowledge "n molhemoticol of íoundotions io the one, ihot focusses ottention

({ur0() ond the second Muslims would soy tnor the firur occupies itselÍ with the bronches lotter is moinly inco.rthe of motter *iit nn" roots (,us0l) oÍ moihemotics. the subiect (oxioms) of Euclid's notjons common ondlthe postulotes, in the deiinitiánr, it',"



iï reveols the interest {rom the Bth to the 14th lentury is os complete os possible. Moreover oÍ ol-Dioiiênï commentory the chopter next ihe oÍ Muslim scientists in speclol ïopics. ln


with on English on rotio, one of tn"re"topi.r. is reproduced ot fuli length, together produced ond is text tronslotion oÍ the text. ln the 3rd chopter the originol Greek some iopic ore quoted' ln the discussed, while other Arobic commeniories on thá jscussed' d ond compored ore +,n-.nopi"t the different opinions

mostly The olchemist GEBER oi tn" Vtiaate Ages; {lourished Euclid' on commentory o hove written
Brockelmonn G(2).

'1. AbCt MOsê

Diêbir ibn Hoiiên ol-Azdi' l,
278; S'

in K6Ío, c' 776' He




Sqrton l, 532. Suler, Arabet, Arl- 3. Kopp lI, ó7. Míeli, Por. 8, 9.



conÍine itself to procticol problems omong which the division dominont port.


inheritonces ployed

Al-Hodidiêdi ibn J0suf ibn Motor' in Bogdod. He twice tronsloted Flourished some time between 786 and 833, probobly under ol-Mo'mCrn' Of rhe then'ogoin ol-Rosiid, Hór0n Eucljd,s ELEMENTS, fir.i ,nd", lotter tronslotlon the Books l-ó ond I l-'l3 ore exionl'
Brockelmqnn G(2). Sonon I, 562.


A clossiÍicotion of Muslim mothemolics. Muslim clossificotion of the different bronches of mothemotics divides them in elemenls (pure mothemotics) ond derivotives. The {irst group is throughout invorioble ond contoins the some subdivisions os the medioevol


221; S'



Suler, Araber, Art. Mieli, Por. 15.




14' The notes refer to rhe bibliogrophy on poge


Al-(Abbês ibn So(ïd ol-Diouhorï.

Flourished under ol-Mo)mOn ond-iook port in the osironomicol observotions ot Bogdod in 829-30 ond ot Domoscus in 832-33. He wrote o commeniory on Eucrid,s ELEMENTS, odditions to Book I (some propositions); ond odditions to Bookt. ih" lott", ore extont.
Brockelmonn S.


Sorlon I, 5ó2, Suler, Arober, Arl. 21. Kapp ll,7l. Krouse, Hondsch riÍten, 44ó"




AbO 'l-Toiiib Sonod


Flourished under ol-Mo)mOn, died oÍter Bó4. A Muslim osironomer ond mqthemoiicion of Jewish birrh. He wfoie on the subiect morfer oÍ Book 5 0f Eucrid,s ELEMENTS.



AbO 'l-Hoson Thêbit ibn Qurro ibn Morwên ol-Horrênï. Physicion, mothemolicion, ond ostronomer from HorrÓn, Mesopotomiq; {lourished in Bogdod ond died in 90'l,75 (or 64) yeors of oge. He improved the tronslotion of the ELEÀ ENTS by lshêq ibn Hunoin ond Qustd ibn Loqê (Books 14 ond 15 by the lotter). Of this improved edition some copies ore exlont. He wrote on introduction to the ELEMENTS ond treotises obout the premisses ond propositions oÍ Euclid. A second wos even better thon the Íirst. He wrote o commeniory improved edition of Euclid ,l5. Extqnt ore severol treoïises on the "postuloie of porollels". to the Books l4 ond
Brockelmann G(2). l, 241; S. Sorton l, 599. Suler, Arober, Art. óó. Kopp ll, 58. Krouse, Hondschriíten, .453.





Svíer, Arober, Art. 24. Kapp ll, 91.

o commeniory


lbn Rêhiwoih ol-Arrodiêni.

AbO Jo<qOb lshêq ibn Hunoin ibn lshêq ol-(lbêdi (ql-Nosrênï). Physicion ond mothemoticion. Died in Bogdod 910/11. He tronsloied Euclid's ELEMENTS

From Arrodjón, o town in Chuzistón beiween Bosro ond Foris. He wroïe on Book l0 of Euclid,s ELEMENTS. His dotes qre uncertoin. Suter, Araber, Art. 33.

ond is soid to hove written o compendium of it. The tronslotion is exiont. See 8. Brockelmann G(2). ,, 227t S. l, 3ó9.
Sorton l, 600, Suler, Araber, Arl. 71. Kopp Il, 58. Mieli, Par. 12.



Abr) J0suf Jo(q0b ibn tshóq ibn ol_Sobbêh ol-Kindï. !: Íhe philosopher of the Arobs (i.e. of the Arob roce). Born in Bosro ot the beginning of the 9th cenrury. Frourished in Bogdod Jiài ,." ars. iJt'riroru on improved edition oÍ Euclid's work ond o Íreotise on its ""a oims (oghrêd).
Erocke/monn c(2). Sorlon l, 559.


230; S.



I0. Qustê ibn LOqê ol-Bo'olbokkï. A Christion of Greek origin, írom Boolbek or Heliopolis, Syrio. Flourished in Bogdod ond died c.912. He wrofe obout difíicult ploces in Euclid's ELEMENTS ond seporotely oboul some orithmeticol problems in Book 3. His tronslotion of ihe Books 14 ond 15
is extont. See 8. Brockelmann G(2). ,,
Sorlon l, ó02. Suler, Araber, Kopp lll, 38. 222; S.

Suler, Arober, ,Arf. 45. Kopp lll, 11.



AbO Allêh Muhommod ibn (lsê ol_Mêhóni. Moihemoticio'n ond ostronomer from Móhdn, Kirmdn, persio. Flourished c. Bó0, died c. 874-884. He wrore obout rhe 2ó propositions of Book r of the ELEMENTS rhot con be proved without o reductio od obsurdum. Èxtqnt ore three (different?) treotises on roiio (Book 5), o porr of o commentory on Book r0, o.d ;; u"ftlnotion oÍ obscure ploces in Book 13. Brockelmonn S. ,, 383. Sqrion l, 597,
Suler, Arober, Arl. 17. Kopp lll, ó0. Krouse, HondschriÍten, 450,




ll. AbO 'l-(Abbês ol-Fqdl ibn Hêtim ol-Noirizï. Asïronomer ond mothemoticion, flourished under ol-Mu'iodid (892-902) ond died c. 922/3. He wrote o commentory on Euclid's ELEMENTS ond o treotise on his "fomous" postulote. Both ore extont.
Brockelmonn S,



Sorton l, 598. Sule4 A,rober, Art. 88. Surer, NochÍrdge, p. ló1, Kopp lll, ó7, Mielí, Par. 15,


Suler, Arober, Art. 94 Kopp ll, 77.

12' 'Ab0 Muhommod ol-Hqsqn ibn (uboid Ailêh ibn suroimên ibn wohb. lion of o wozir of ol-Mu'rodid, who died in 901 H;-;;;il"o'-.orr"niory on " ,ltrbious ploces in Euclid,s wort obout rotio in one Íreotise
ond Ann. 23 p. 2ll.

o commenlory on the Íirst port of Book l0 of the
Brockelmonn S. SorÍon l, 6ó4,

ELEMENTS. Severol copies ore exlqnl.




Suler, Arsber, Arr. Kopp ll,77.

AbO cUrhmên So(ïd ibn Jo(q0b ol-Dimosiqi. Muslim physicion ond moÍhemoticion, frourished oi bogdod llo Ïronsloied some Books of Euclid's ELEMENTS incluiing under or-Muqtodir (gog-g32). tÀ" rótr,,,ra the commentory o[ Poppos on it. The lotter lronslotion is exlont.
Sorlon Kopp


Krouse, Hondsch riflen, 4ó2,


Svler, Arober. Art. 98-


J0honnê ibn J0suf ibn ql-Hêrith ibn ol-Botrïq, ol-Qoss. Died c.980. He tronsloted Euclid from the Greek. Of his hond ond irrotionol mognitudes is exlont. Brockelmonn S. ,, 389. SuÍer, Arober, Arl. l3l. Kopp lll, 37.


o treotise on rotionol

Mioli, Por. 2l .

ibn Muhommod ibn Torchón ibn uzrogh sr-Fórêbï. t-)r cr Turkish Íomity; srudicd i. B.sJ;;; ii.rïn.i.i.;;;i;;; died in Domosrrrs' oged c 80, in 950. He wrote o commenlory on the difficulïies ^"*.ï", in Euclid,s premisses of the Books I ond S, exiqnt in He,brew.
Sorion l, ó28. Suler, Araber, AÉ. It6. Suler, Nochtrdge, p, ló5. Kopp ll, 97.
Brockelmqnn G(2).

l4' Ab. Nosr Muhommod

(Alï ibn Ahmod ol-Antêkï, ol-Muditobê. AbO 'l-Qêsim Flourished in Bogdod ond died in 987. Of hjs commentory second port is extoni. Suler, Arober, Atr. 140. Kopp II, 54.


on Euclid's ELEMENTS ihe

I, 234-3ó; S. l,


,AbCl Do)0d Suloimon ibn cUqbo. corrtemporory of ol-Chózin (no. lz). H" wrote cÍ conrmentory on ihe subiect nrcriter .[ I'he second port of Euclid,s ELEMENTS, Book 10, which i, u*t'"ni. Suter, Árober. Art. lt7.



ol-Korêbïsï. Ahmod ibn Mothemoticiqn. He wrole o commentory on Euclid. Exlont is beginnings (:ud0r) of Euclid's work. His dotes nre uncertoin' Brockelmonn G(2). I, 27; S. l, 390. Suter, Arober, Ad. 144, Kopp lll, 37. 21 . AbO J0suf Jo(qOb ibn Muhommod ol-Rfizi'




commentory on the

He wrote o commentory on Book 10 lbn ol-'Amïd.
Suler, Arober, AÍt. 147. Kopp ll, 9ó.


ot the

instonce of

1ó. Ahmod ibn ol-Husoin, ol-Ahwêzï, ol_Kêiib. llourished c 940. He wrote o commentory on Book i0 of the ELEMENïS, which is extont. l-lr: is not sofely identified. Brockelmonn S. l, 387.
Sutcr, Arober, Art. 123. Kopp ll, 57.
Krouse, HondscáriÍten, 4ó2.

Mieli, Psr.


22. Nozïf ibn Jumn ol-Mutotqbbib.
A christion

his tronslotion of some He tronsloted Book l0 (?) of Euclid's ELEMENTS. Extont is ']0,ó, slight modificotions of 'l0,7 ond 10,8 ond o por'Í odditions in Greek to l0,l ond of the corroiorium of 10,9 (Oxford edition).
Brockelmonn S,


Greelk origin. Flourished under

(Adud ol-Doulo; died c.990.

AbCl Dio(for ol-Chêzin. llotrr itr KhurÓsÓn, died between









92l. À4othenroticion ond ostronomer. He wrote

Suler, A,rober,

Arl. 158,


lll' ó8'




Á'b0 lshêq lbrêhim ibn Hilêr ibn rbróhïm ibn Zohr0n ol-Horrênï. A sobion; died in Bogdod 9g4. He wrote o commenrory on EucLid,s ÊtrurNrs. I,

probobly in l0lB. He wrote to ol-Bïr0ni on
Erockelmonn c(2). Sorlon l, óó8.


dubious ploce

in Book l3 of


letier is extont.

Svler, Arober, Arl, ló1.


ó23; S.






'l-wofê Muhommod ibn Muhommod ibn Johiê ibn lsmê(ïl ibn ol-<Abbês

Svter, Araber, Art, Kopp lll, 61.


Mothemoticion ond ostronomer; born
Bogdo'd, where he íinished-

in B0zodión, e0histdn, 940. He flourished in died in 99g. He wrote o commentory on Euclid,s ELEMENTS, not


Brockelmqnn G(2). l, 2SS; S. Sorlon l, ó66. Suter, Arober, Arl. 1ó7, Kopp lll,70. Mieli, Por. 21.

ot Gronodo; died in crt the oge of 5ó. Hispono-Muslim mothemoticion ond otsronomer. He wrote on introduction to Euclid's work.

AbO 'l-Qêsim ,Asbogh ibn Muhommod .l035,



l, ó23t S. Sqrton l,715, Suler, Árober, Arl. 194. Kopp ll, 84.
Brockelmqnn G(2).



25. AbO Sohl Woidión ibn Rusrom ol_K0hï. Mothemoiicion ond ostronomer; frourished in Bogdod c. 9gB. He wrote o revision of the ELEMENTS wirh odditions. Exronr ore rhe Books-(l ?), 2., á (;;r;iyi'
Brcckelmann G(2). l, 254; S. Sorlon l, ó65, Svler, Araber, Arl. 175Kopp lll, 5ó.




AbO (Alï ol-Husoin ibn (Abd Allêh ibn Sïnê. AVICENNAT born in 980 oi Afsiono, neor Bukhêró, died in Homodhdn, .l032. Wrote the Kitdb ol-slifó', Sonotio, o philosophicol encyclopoedio. The mothemoticol port of this work is on Arobic version of the ELEMENTS in concise but cleor formulotion, vorying very little from ïhe originol Greek one. Severol copies ore extont os well os of the Kifób ol-nodiêt, Liberotio, which is on extroct of the Íormer. An exlont compendium of Euclid moy be o seporote edition of the mothemoticol porï.


Muhommod ibn al-<Aziz ol-Hêsiimï. Flourished in the second holf oí the lOth ."nirry. He wrote o treotise on irroiionol roots (Book l0 of the ELEMENTS), which is extonr. l8l.


Suler, Arober, Art.

27- Abt so(ïd ,Ahmod ibn Muhommod ibn (Abd or-Diorïr or-sidizï.
Brockelmann G(2).

Brockelmonn G(2). ,, 589; S. l, 812. Sorton l, 709. Suier, Arober, Arl. 198. Kapp ll, 84. Korl Lokolsch, Avicenno ols Molhemotiker, ÊrÍurt, 1912. Krouse, Hondschriílen, 47 3,

Mothemoticion; lived from c. 9sr - c. 1024. He improved.oru or-Ër.tid,s proofs ond wrote leliers on subiects of the kind. Some work is exlonl.


Sarton I, ó65. Suler, Arober, Kopp ll, 83.

I, 21ó; S. ,,


ALHAZEN; born c.9ó5 in Bosro; flourished in Egypt, died in Coiro ,l039 or soon ofier; ostronomer, molhemoticion ond physicion. He wrote o commentory on the musódoról of Euclid ond o treotise on the dubious ploces in ïhe ELEMENTS. Both ore extont.
Brockelmqnn G(2). Sqrlon I, 721.

AbO )Alï ol-Hoson ibn ol-Hoson ibn ol-Hoithom (ol-Bosrï).

Ail, l85.

l, ó17; S. ,,


28., ,Ab0 Nosr Mons0r ibn cAli ibn (lráq.
Muslim mothemoticion ond ostronomer; teo;her


ol-Bïr0nï, siill octive

in i002,


Suler, Arober, Ad. 204. SuÍer, NochÍrdge, p. 170. Kopp lll,73.
Krouse, HondschriÍten,
47 4,

o o


AbO (Abd Allóh Muhommod ibn J0suf ibn Ahmod ibn Mu(êdh ol-Dioiiánï. From sevillo; flourished- c. 1080; wozir, qódï, ond foqïh. He wrote o commentory on rotio (the firsi seven definifions of Book 5) which is extqnt.

36. AbO Muhommod Diêbir ibn Afloh. Hispono-Muslim àstronomer ond êigfn, 'ond
Sarlon ll,206. Suier, Arober, Art' 284. Kopp ll, 69. Mieli, Por. 43.

Brockelmonn S.

died probobly obout ihe middle oÍ fhe thjrteenth century. He wroie on explonotion o{ Euclid, o Hebrew copy of whjch is exlonï'

mothemoticion; lived in Sevillo (or wos born

Sorlon ll, 342. Suter, Arober, A,il. 213. SuÍer, Nochírcige, p. 170. Kopp 11,77; ibidem note I7B.

AbO 'l-Foth (Umor ibn lbrêhïm ol-Choiiêmï Ghiiêrh ol_Din. Persion mothemoticion, ostronomer ond poet;'born in or neor Nïsiêb0r c. 1038_'l04g; died there in I'l23. He wrote (in 'l078) o commentory on the difficuities in the premisses of Euclid, which is exront.


Ahmqd ibn Muhommod ibn ol-Surê Noim ol-Din (lbn ol-Solêh)' He wrote lreotises on Persion physicion in Bogdod, loter in Domoscus; died in I'l53. diÍferent ploces of the ELEMENTS, which ore extont'

37. AbO'l-Fui0h

Brockelmqnn S.


Brockelmqnn G(2).

Sqrlon l, 759Suler, Araber. Art. 2óó. Kopp 11,79.

I, 620; S. ,, 85j.

Suler, Arober, A'rl. 287.
Krouse, Hondscfi ri[Ien, 485.

3g. Abo (Abd
l0 of According

Allêh Muhommod J0suf ibn Muhommod Muwoffoq ol-Dïn ol-Arbilï' explonotions of Lived in Sjohruz0r ond Domoscus, died in I189 in Arbelo' He wrote
Euclid's ELEMENTS. Suler, Arober, Art' 305.



fo suter we could rend "iudicis" i.s.o. "iudei". one Àbo Bokr Muhommod ibn cAbd ol-Bóqï. wos qódï 'l -mórostên, iudge of the hospitol, in Bogdod-.. I tzg. ln rhe ms.
the oulhor is colled Abbocus, which moy come from ob(dol)bJcus. lt contoins numericol exomples, iust whot ol-Qiftï mentions obou't the treotise of Abd ol-Bdqï.
Brockelmonn S,

Flourished c. ll00 or loter. Proboble oulhor of on extont commentory on Book ïhe ELEMENTS, "Liber iu.dei super decimum Euclidis,,, by Gerord of ór"rono.

ibn Muhommod ol-Boghdêdï.




'l]98. He is soid to hove written AVERROES; born jn cordovo I12ó, djed in Morokko otreotiseonwhotisindispensobleofEuclid{orthesiudyo{theALMAGEST. 833' Erockelmonn G(2). l, 604; S' ', Sorton lÍ, 355.
Suler, Arober,

AbO 'l-Wqlïd Muhommod

ibn Ahmod ibn Muhommod ibn Rusid'

Suler, Arober, A,rl. 517. SuÍer, Nochtrdge, p. 181. Kopp lll, óó. Biiirnbo, Ueber zwei moth. Hondschr. o.d. 14. Johrh.. Bib, Moth. 3(3),71, lg)2. sufer, ueber den Kommentor des Muh. b. (Abdathoqi zum r0. Buch v.'Euktid. g;b. Moft,(g),7,2g4,1906_7. Mieli, Por. 21.



40, Abo (Abd Allóh


ibn (Umor ibn ol-Husoin ibn ql.Chotïb


35. Al-MuzoíÍqr ibn lsmê(ïl ol-Asíizêrï. Muslim mothemoticion ond physicisi, coiloborotor of (Umor ol-Choilêmï; died beÍore 1122.He wrote o summory of Eucrid's ELEMENTS, of which Book r4 ïs exront.
Brockelmqnn S.

ol-Din ol-Rêzi' persion; lived from l150-.l2,l0; wrote obout the musÓdorêt deeply into the theory of the ELEMENTS (?)'
Brockelmann 611). I, óó6; S' Sarlon ll, 3ó4' Suler, Araber, Ail' 328. Kopp ll, 94.


Euclid ond peneiroted



Sorton Il, 204. Suler, ÁroÀer, AÍr. 268.
Krouse, Hondschriflen,





ol-HqnoÍï' ol-Ghonï ibn Musàfïr 41. Qoisor ibn Abï 'l-Qêsim ibn 1178; died ot in Asf0n oï born engineer; ond árironot"r Egyption mothemoticion,


(Alom ql-Dïn



Domoscus is extont.

in 'l25,l. He wrote to Nosïr ol-Dïn ol-T0si obout Euclid's

premisses. The letter

Brockalmonn S.

Ssrlon ll, ó23.
Suler, Arober,


Muhommod ibn Abï 'l-Slukr ol-Moghribi ol-Andolusï. l-lispono-Muslim mothemoticion qnd ostronomer. Flourished {irst in Syrio, then in 'l280. He wrote o purificotion of Euclid's ELEMENTS, thot is extont. Morógho. He died c.

45. Muhiï ol-Millo wo'l-Dïn Johiê ibn

Krouse, Hondscáriften, 491.

42' Ab0 Zokorïiê Johiê (or
ol-Dïn, lbn ol-Lub0dï.

Ahmod) ibn Muhommod ibn (Abdên, ol-sêhib Nodim

Brockelmonn G(2). t, 62ój S. Sorton ll, I015. Svler, Arober, Arf. 37ó. Kopp ll,92.



clied oíïer 1267; lived mony yeors

Syrion physicion, morhemcrticion, osrronomer ond philosopher. Born in Holob, 1210/11;

I(rouse, Hondsch riíl e n, 505.

explonotion of Euclid's postulotes (?) ond Sorlon ll. ó24.
Suler, Arober, Arl. 3ó5. Kopp lll, ó7.

in Egypt. He wrote on exrroct irom Euclid, on


o .r,nnrory of his


46. Sioms ol-Din Muhommod ibn AsirêÍ ol-Husoini ol-Somorqondï. Muslim mothemoticion, ostronomer, logicion who Ílourished obout 1276. He wrote on explonotion of 35 propositions of Book 5 of the ELEMENïS, which is extont.
Brocfrelmonn G(2). Satlon Il, 1020,


615; S.



Sorlon Il, l0OI. Suler, A,raber, Art. 3ó8. Krouse, Hondschriílen, 199. Mieli, Por. 29.

voried lhon is indicoted. Brockelmonn G(2). t, ó7Oi S. I,

ol-Muhoqqiq. Persion philosopher, mothemoticion, ostronomer, physicion ond scientist, who wrote in Arobic ond Persion. Born in i20l; died in )274. He wrote two redoctions of the ELEMENTS, o lorger ond o shorter one. The first is extont in Florence ond wos printed in Rome, 1594. There ore two versions, wÍh 13 ond with 12 Books, with ond without o Lotin tifle. Of the shorter edition in l5 Books mony copies ore extont. lt wos printed in Constontinople in 180], ïhe Books j-ó olso ot Colcutio in 1824. ll wos commented on by AbO lsh6q. He wrote on Euclid's posiurotes (?) (ol-uq0l ol- moud0co), retters to Qoisor ibn Abï'l-Qêsim obout ihe sth postuloie ond on 105 problems bosed on the ELEMENTS. Of oll these treotises copies ore extont ond the contents moy be even more

43. AbO Dio(for Muhommod ibn Muhommod ibn ol-Hoson, Nosïr ol-Dïn ol-T0sï,

Suler, Arober,


Suter, Nocàtrëge, Kopp 11,92.

382. 178.


(Uthmên ol-Azdi (lbn ol-Bonnê)). AbO 'l-(Abbês Ahmod ibn Muhommod ibn Moroccon mothemoiicion ond ostronomer; born c. 1256, died l32l or loter. He wroie on introduciion to Euclid.
Brockelmann G(2). tl, 255; S. 88, 3ó3. Sorlon ll, 988. Suter, Arober, Arl. 399 ond p. 220.

48. (Ali

Lived from

ibn Muhommod ol-Soiiid ol-Siorif ol-Diurdiênï. ,l340-.l4.l3. He wrote morginol noles to T0sï's Euclid, which ore exlont.

Erockelmonn S.

Suler, Araber, An. 424. Kapp ll,71.


ore extont.

So<ïd ibn Mos)0d ibn ol-eoss. His fother lived c. 1250. He wrote morginol notes to Codex Leidensis 399,



49. MOsê ibn Muhqmmod ibn Mohm0d, Qêdi-zêdoh ol-R0mi. Born in Brusso; flourished under Ul0gh Beg. He wroie o commenlory on ïhe treotise of ol-Somorqondi on 35 proposiiions of Book I oÍ the ELEMENTS. Severol copies ore extonl, one of them contoining the text of the ELEMENTS ond Euclid's coreer.

Svler, Arober, p. 227.



G (l). l,


Suier, Arober, Art. 430,







(l) soRoKlN,


development, T00-1300 A.D.. A study in melhod. lSlS 22, 516-24, j935.

A.; MERToN, Robert K.. The course of Arobion intelleciuol

(2) STEPHËNSON, J.. The Clossiíicotion of lhe Sciences occording to Nosiruddin Tusi. lSlS 5,329-338. The outhor cires Zellner, Die philosophie der Griechen. bonden ongeposste Aufloge. Leiden, E.

(3) BROCKELMANN, Corl. Geschichte der Arobischen Liiierotur. Zweiie den Supplement-

ll, i938;


J. Brill, 1943-44. lll, 1942.




(4) SUTER, Heinrich. Die Mothemotiker und AsÍronomen cier Arober und ihre Werke. Abh. z. Gesch. d. Moih. Wissensch. mit Einschluss ihrer Anwenclungen. X. Heft. Leipzig,


(5) suïER, Heinrich. Nochiroge und Berichtigungen zu,,Die Mothemotiker Abh. z. Gesch. d. Moth. Wiss. erc. XIV. HeÍr, p. ISS-85, Leipzig, 1902. (ó)


Commeniory on rotio occording to the reosoning oÍ the qêdi AbO 'Abd ( him' Muhommod ibn Mu ódh ol-01à11oni, God, who is lofty, hove mercy upon

noturw. werke ouf Grund des To'rikh ol-Hukomó' des lbn ol-eiftï. lsls 22, 23, 24,

KAPP, A.G. . Arobische Uebersetzer und Kommentotoren Euclids, sowie deren moth.-

(7) KRAUSE, Mox. . Stombuler HondschriÍten islomischer Mothemqtiker. euellen und studien zur Geschichte der Mcrfhemoïik, Astronomie und physik. Abt. B, Siudien; Bond 3; p.437-532;1936.
Leíden, F. J. Brill,

(8) MlELl, Aldo. Lo science Arobe et son rêle dons l'évolution scientifique mondiole. .l938.

Note: The English translation {ollows upon the Arabic text as closely as seemed conrpatible with the demands o{ intelligibility. It is printed against the corresponding original. The beginning oÍ a new page in the Arabic text is indicaled in the translation do uv (g), (c), etc. The {igures are designed in accordance with mediaeval practice, but
not claim any authenticitY.



ln the nome of God, grocious ond merciful. God bless our mosier Muhommod. The qodi Abti (Abd AllOh Muhommod ibn Mu(ódh ol-Dioliónï, God be pleosed with him, soys, We intend to exploin whot moy not be cleor in the fifrh book oÍ Euclid's writing to such os ore not solisÍied with it, though I hove the conviclion os to Euclid's reosoning, his inlentions ond his oims ihoi Íhey ore more evident ond cleorer in subdivision to ony true ond Íoir exominer thon much by meons of which one hos tried io moke it cleor ond hoped to illustrote it; except some things which he left becouse his reosoning ond the orrongement of his writing were sufficient to moke them understood ond reolised. Concerning thot which mef with opposition ond people thought not Ío be complefe or cleor, so thot they modo it comple'ie or cleor occording to their own thinking, well, their reosoning on this point is more Íit for being exploined ond is more in wont of proof thon Euclid's writing. So, Íor instonce, is our opinion on the writing oscribed to Syndus (l); for he who considers his prooÍs of thot which Euclid gives without proof, os"'lf two stroighi lines ore drown over less thon two right ongles, Íhey will inevitobly meet" (2) ond "The diometer bisects ïhe circle" (3) ond "Two stroight lines do not enclose o surfoce" (4) will see weokness ond debility in ihem ond the necessity of ossuming things which ore more extensive thon those Euclid cloims to ossume os self-evident. Now somebody moy remork' "lÍ Euclid's reosoning in his writing is os you meniion, ond nobody mokes it cleorer thon Euclid did, why then do you desire to exploin his reosoning in rhe fifth book ond elucidote whot is obscure in it?" Then I soy, By this writing we only meon to exploin thot Euclid's reosoning in this book is ihe very sound one ond his method the very monifest one. For mony think thot Euclid opprooches the explonotion of rolio Írom o door other thon its proper door, ond introduces it in o wrong woy by his definition oÍ it by toking multiples, ond in his seporoting from its deÍinition concerning its essence thot which is undersiood by the very conception of rotio; ond they iudge thot there is no obvious conneclion between roïio ond toking multiples. But upon my life, wiih nothing rotio is more closely connecied thon with toking multiples of the two compored mognitudes. Upon the whole I soy thot rhe fiÍth book cor.rtoins some obscuriÍy, ond thot ihe study of it moy be tiring; however oll strivings ore meosured by the nobleness of the obiect to be ochieved, ond he who ospires to o beouty's hond must poy the price. For ihe writing Írom this point onwords is of o spirituol ncriure ond whot precedes is of o corporol one. We will soy in this motter thol which I hope God will moke useful to the ottentive reoder, ond which moy help him to remove the difficulties in it. To Him, who is lofty ond is nol equolled in groce, I pro{fer my humble proyer {or right conduct ond preservotion from error ond conceit; for He is mighty ond there is no lord beside Him. I soy, ond God be my help, thot the things thot come under the quontity used in the ort of geometry ore five, viz. ihe nurnber (5), (B) which is the Íirst ond simplest oÍ fiem, the line, the surfoce, the ongle o'nd the solid. Let us use the term mognitude in generol to denote ony oÍ these things, to which it is o nome Íor the species comprising oll of them. Wherr the mognitudes ore of one of ïhese five species let them be colled homogeneous. These hove the property thot by {requent multiplicotion the less csn



4 5


9 10

12 13 14 15 1ó 17

19 20

22 23 24



two mognitudes ond exhousts thot mognitude in numbering ihen evidently the meosured mognitude is porls of lhe other. lf however the mognitudes ore incommensuroble none of ihem conÍoins exoct ports of the other. As Ío the terms oÍ ihe proportion the first oÍ them contoins os mony ports of lhe second os lhe fhird contoins such porls of ihe fourth (9). This is evident, no veil is over it ond it needs no proof. Euclid deols (c) wirh it in the some woy in lhe seventh book, but it is only eÍÍective if the first mognitude is commensuroble wiih the second ond the third is commensuroble with rhe Íàurth, so thot eoch

port is less thon the whole. Now from the whole only such ports ore token thot do not reoch up to the whole; Íor if it exceeds the whole it is colled greoter thon it, or o multiple of it, ond the term "Íoking ports" is not opplicoble to it. we however will inlroduce in this writing oÍ ours lhe proctice thot when we ioke ports of some mognitude we will poy no ottention lo the question whether such ports do equol the mognltude they ore token from or foll short oÍ it or exceed it, the eÍfect of which *o-rld bu throwing the diÍficulty on repetition of our reosoning ond prolixity in whoi we iniend to exploin hereofter, if God is willing. For ihis will neither domoge the proof in ony woy, nor does it deviote from ony ossumed bose or is ot vorionce with it. lt only serves to focilitote ihe reosoning ond to shorten it. So we obsolve ourselves from the obligotion Ío indicote in every cose which mognitude is the greoier in order to roke ports írom it. lf the mognitudes ore commensuroble, then one of them contoins exoct ports completely Íilling up the other. For iÍ the third mogniïude, which meosures both, is produce:d, this third is o port of eoch of them, ond when it is ïoken o number of Íimes from one of the

the greoter is colled Íhe multiple. lt is olso colled the superior (ó) to thot port. When the less oÍ the two homogeneous mognitudes meosures the greoter, or when lhere is o third mognitude oÍ the some species thol meosures eoch of both, then they ore colled commensuroble; ond when the less does not meosure lhe greoter, ond no third mognitude is found thot meosures them, then they ore colled incommensuroble. Rotio is size of o mognitude os compored with oÁother mognilude of the some species, viz. o comporison is mode beiween the two mogniludes Íor the purpose ihot the size moy be known of one of them os compored with the other (7). Proportion is equolity of rotios (8). When o mognitude is reloted to onother mognitude the loÍter is colled consequeni ond the -for11-1"1" ontecedent, ond either of ontecedent ond consequeni is colled the componion oÍ the other. The whole is greoter thqn the port ond likewise it is usuol to odmit thot the

equol the greoier or exceed it. Also con by Írequent division Íhe greoter become equol to ihe less or foll short of it. When there ore two homogeneous mognifudes ond the less meosures the greoter, ihen the less is colled q port of the greoter ond


13 14 15


18 19



thot it is greoter thon such ond, such ports ond ress thon such ond such ports. so too it is with irrotio'nol roots. lf we ore obligod to reolise tnu, in ports we soy thot the root. of o given number which is not o squore is greoter thon the root of eoch squore less ihon the given number ond less Íhon the rooi oi eoch squore greoter thon the given number; ond the omission ond impossibiliry oÍ expressing do not intrude upon the purport of it ond do not (D) ofÍect the sound bo.e noi tronsform it. When now it is oll Írue whot we hove mentioned obout this, we only expotiote on it

not of the some kind (.l0). And so too ore the commensuroble ond-the incommensurqble omong the mognitudes. these being not oÍ the some kind. For expressing by ports is impossibÍe omong incommensurobles, iust us ii is impossible wiih one speciol meosure omong circumíerence ond diometer. About the circumference it is only soid thot ii is greoter thon the sides of 'every figure inscribed in the circle ond less thon the sides of every Íigure circumscribed oboui the circle. And likewise, riun *" relote some mognitude to o mognitude incommensuroble with it ond ore obliged to express this or to opproximote it io some expressible rorio for some design- or other, we soy

when however the componions the size oÍ eoch ontecedent os compored with its consequent ond to reduce it to o portition ond to il rv meons of porfs, then it is,evident, olthough the wellknown view does not ""pr"* exist, nomely expressing by ports, ond is improcÍicoble ond no ports of the consequent fill up completely eoch oÍ Íhe ontecedents wifhout remoinder, fhot it is by no ,uán, porriui! Íor the rotio of the Íirst to lhe second to be like the rotio oÍ thJ third to the Íourth while ihe first contoins more ports of ihe second then the third oÍ th" forrth oní'no less either. This needs no proof, becouse ii oppeols immediotely to the mind. For o mognitude contoins more ports of o second mcrgnitude ihon o third mognitudewhen such ports oí o {ourth mognitude, then the size oÍ thJ Íirst os compored with the second is not like the size of the third os compared with the fourth. Over this there is no veil, nor is it mode cleorer by the reosoning, since likewise things thot ore cleor ond evident to the mind without need oÍ prooÍ ár" not mode .l.or", uv pàrixrv in the explonotion, becouse there is no method to moke cleor whot is olreody cleor in it' This preomble however detrocts nothing from the foci thot in this cose lhere is no expressing by meons oÍ ports thot cover eoch of the two ontedents ond thot it con only be expressed by less ond more. However whot is less thon o thing is not determined, nor whot is more either; equolity only is determined. But the like we oíten íind in this ort; for instonce, when we to know the length of the circumference oÍ o circle ond its size os compored desire with the diometer, then we leorn this by less ond more; for similority o^a eqrotrty Íoil in it, becouse equoliïy never occurs berween o curved line orrd o rtrÀiglt one, Íor they ore


number. of pcrrts of iïs componion. ore incommensuroble ond it is impossible to express

o whole



somebody thinks these mog'nifudes to be proportionor ond soys Íhot AB is, for instonce, more rhon three hundred ond sixiy seven ten thousondth ports of CD ond thot EF is less thon such ports token from GÉ or equor to them, there is no difference beiween the precèding. This we odduced qitl.l*gh-;í.'rloroning this,onf needs no nrore oí the kind in order trrot it migrrt be creor thot ihe ,ï"or*, is quite generor, so lhot..the condition opplies to oll portsl

of GH. Bur if rhey ore incommensurobre, then, oïthorgÁ ;"; unqbre to express how mony ports AB contoins oÍ CD, onyon" who supposes these mogniiudes to be proportionol is nor ollowed to soy, Íor instonce, thot AB is more thon Íwo thirds of CD, ond EF less rhon fwo thirds oi GH or equor io two r.,i.À .i óH. etuo h" moy nor soy thof AB is two thirds of CD, ond EF more Íhon two thirds oi Cu no,. ress either; -two nor thot AB is less Íhon Íwo thirds of cD, ond EF more thqn thirds of GH or equol to two thirds. These Íhings ore essentioily ob.rà. rlr"rry'ín"" we exomine the other ports ond cire them, fár whot is on qbsurd ui"* in Àri"i, or ,n* ports we mentioned is olso obsurd in respect of the other poris, be they ever-ro smoll. Therefore

cD ro be os to GH, then Jhe reosoning obout this is creor*if AB ond cD ore commensuroble; lmeon thot AB conroins J,,ony ports oÍ CD os EF contoins such ports
rhe rotio

ports Íoken Írom Íhe fourth ond no less either. Howevei no indeÍiniteness must be in our words "ony ports of the second . . . . onyihing,,, becouse iÍ tr,* nonn", of the ports of rhe second conroined in rhe firsr differ from rh" ;.;;;;iiÀ" p;';, of rhe {ourrh con_ toined in the third, rhe rorios ore differenr ond nor ir;;r;lctlve whor porrs ore concerned. on this wiil give some erucidorion "qrol, by';";,i-;i porticuror cose, o becouse there is some ,r.h" on which nobody wirr refuse, orthough we 'porti.rro, "l"rpr", hove fostened down o,lrecrdy the generor oi *ior.fpri", t.'oil coses in q suíficient woy. We will give it hoiever for ihe soke'of gruor; .i;rness. so we soy: when somebody supposes rhe rorio oÍ o mogniiude AB;"-;

ond bring it forword ond emphosise it in order thot it moy be o bosis to rely upon in whot follows hereoÍter, i{ God is.willing. This is thor *Àá"-Íh" rotio oÍ the Íirst to the second is os Íhe rotio of the thirc{ tJ the fourth it connot hàppe. thot of ony ports of the second the,.Íirst should lonioin onything more thon



the third oí

such seen

4 5 ó





12 13 14 15 1ó 17 18 19 20


tinguished oÈove orhers. rni, ii tn"t È--* ? f,---------**t H t------r when of proportionol mogniludes the rotio oÍ the firs't to the second is os the roiio oí the third to the íourth, it is impossible to Íind ports of the second ond Íourih equor in number ond denominoiion, whoiever ports rhey moy be, so ihot_the ports of the second ore found to exceed fie Íirst mognitude, unless the porÍs of the fourïh too exceed ïhe third irl Àognirra"; or thot the ports of Íhe second ore found Ío be equor io the Íirst..g"irrJJ,

lorge, no ports beino






22 23 24 25

the porÍs

22 23


third of lhe Íourth; ond likewise, when ports oÍ the second. ore found folling short of the first mognitude ond porïs of the Íourih being equor to the ïhird,.nojnitrdu o.. exceeding it, the Íirst.contoins more ports of the second thon the third of ihe fourth. All this is obsurd, oni whot remoins for us in fhis preomble is to show whether it is

this we proved olreody the obsurdity. And likewise, when ports of the second ore found being equol to $e first mogniiude ond poris of the fourih exeeding or folling short of the third mognitude, the Íirst contoins less or more ports of the second thàn the

oÍ the Íourt'h mognitude too ore equol to the ihird mognitude; or thot the ports of the second ore found to íoll short of the first mognitude, unless the ports of the fourth ioo foll short of the third mognitude. For if ports of the second ore found exceeding the first ond ports oÍ Íhe fourth being equol to the ihird or folling short of it, the Íirst contoins less porfs of the second thon the third of the fourth, ánd oÍ




We then soy thot it is convertible, viz. when there ore Íour mognitudes while of oll. ports equol in number ond denominoïion token Írom the ,".onJ ond the fourth the ports of the second ore not Íound to exceed the first mognitude, unless the ports of the fourth too exceed the third mognitude, nor ore the poits of t'he second found to be equol to the first mognitude, unless the ports of the fourth too be equol to the third mognitude, nor ore the ports of the second íound to foll shori of the Íirst mognitude, unless the ports of the fourïh too foll short of the third mognitude, rhen th1 rotio of the first to the second is os the rotio oÍ the third to the fouith. lÍ, for insfonce, we ioke for the {our mognitudes AB, c, DE, F, ond suppose thot of oll some ports found of C ond F the ports of C ore not found to exceed Ab, unless the ports of F too exceed DE, ond the ports of c ore noi found ot be equol to AB, unless ihe ports of F too be equol to DE, ond ihot the ports of C ore noi Íound to foll short of AB, unless ïhe poris of F too Íoll short of DE, then lsoy ihot the rotio of AB to c is os the rotio



hove supposed so obout ïhe mognitudes (F) AB, c, DE, F. Let theseporis be Ao, op, pe. consequently AQ is ports ot c ond DN is ihe some kind of polt, of F, in the

ogoin ond ogoin, first toking the holve, then which Íollows in the division, viz. the third ond so on till we come to the first port of F thot is less thon GE ond iolt tnot por n. ihi, is less thon GE. From C we toke the some port; be it K. ïhen we subtroct from DE pieces equ.ol to H, beginning to subtroct from D, until it comes 1o the first mork necr E. not reoching up to G, Íor GE is greoter thon H; ond ret these pieces b" DL, iM, MN. Then we subtroct Írom AB pieces equol to K; it will contoin K os mony times os DE contoins H. The result posses B ond exceeds AB, iust os DN exceeds DE, becouse we

Ïhe proof of this is thot it con not be otherwise. For iÍ thot could be so, let the rotio oÍ AB to c be os the rotio of DG to F (lr). lf GE is less thon F, we soy: we divide F


number. Buï AQ is greoter ïhon AB ond DN is less thon DG; thereíore AB contoins of C thon DG of F. And yet the rotio oÍ AB to C should be o,s the rotio oÍ DG to F. This is o controdiction; it is impossible ond consequently the rotio of AB io c is unlike the rotio of something greoter thon DE io F. Likewise it is proved to be unlike the rotio o{ something less thon DE to F. Consequently the rotio of AB to C is only os the ,rotio of DE to F ond lhis is whot intended to demonstrote.
less ports


2 3




D # CF


M, E N



other, then it is olso possible to to some multiple oÍ the other; which will occur in the cose oÍ commensuroble mogniiudes. Bui when it is entirely impossible to find ports of one of them thot ore equol to ports of ïhe other, then it is olso impossible thot there is some multiple of one of them equol to some multiple of the other; which will occur in the cose of incommensuroble mognitudes. And likewise, when to two unequol mognitudes o third mognitude is found less thon these two, meosuring them ond being o port of eoch of them, then olso o common multiple of ïhem will be found, so ihot the conformlty of the conditions of the multiples in respecï of the con'ditions of the ports is yet more evideni. I will now present something of which on exomple is required, viz. thol if A is some ihem thot ore equol
some ports
toke o multiple of one of them thoi is equol

As whot we hove previously soid. ond emphosized is cleor now ond we hove got o sound ideo oí proportion in the cbse oÍ commensuroble mognitudes, where expressing is possible in on exoct woy by meons oÍ ports, ond in ïhe cose of incommensuroble mognitudes, olthough expressing by meons of ports in the strict sense is not otïoinoble here, so moy suffice whot we hove mentioned, if God, who is lofty, is willing, ond let us soy whot is our intention in this writing. This is the view which brought Euclid to his deÍinition of rotio by meons oÍ toking multiples with restriction lo thot; without completing oll thot is occidentol ond complementory to rotio ond its increosing ond decreosing; ond to the neglect of oll this being content with toking multiples. Therefore lsoy, ond God be my help for right conduct, thol, os proportion orises, os we mentioned, from the considerotion of ports ond their comporison, oll thot occurs with the ports we toke occurs likewise with the multiples, os to exceeding, folling short or being equol, ond whot is unottoinoble with ports is olso unoltoinoble with multiples, becouse multiplicotion ond portilion ore of one cotegory. For they both originoie from unity, but thot mulïiplicofion originotes Írom ii by increose ond enlorgement ond portition inversely by decreose ond diminution. The some principle opplies to eoch of both. The two mogniïudes indeed, when it is possible to find ports of one of






1ó 17 18 19 20


of the

22 23



multiple of B, while the some multiple is token oÍ A ond B, viz. CD ond EF, then I soy, (G) thot CD is the some multiple of EF os A is oÍ B. Proof: We divide CD in its ports equol to A, which moy be CG ond GD, ond divide EF in its ports equol to B, which moy be EH, HF, then CG is equol to A ond EH equol to B, ond likewise CG is Íhe some multiple of EH os A is of B, ond likewise GD oÍ HF. Thereíore the whoie CD is the some multiple of EF os A is of B, cF__f___j ond the prooÍ is complete. Now we soy thot ,, o I when lhere ore loken two difÍerent mognitu- I E |+|H F des, ond ports ore token of one of them, ond }* these ports ore compored with the other mognitude, ïhen their condition os to exceeding, folling short ond being equol is lhe some os the condition of o certoin multiple loken of Íhe ported mognitude in respect of o certoin multiple token of the ofier mognitude, if (the number of) the multiple of ihe ported mognitude is equol to lhe number oÍ the ports, ond likewise (the number of) the multiple of the other mogniiude is equol to the denominoïor of the ports. An exomple of this is, thot the mognitudes A ond B ore different ond thot of A o number of poris is token, which moy be CD, one of which porïs being CE, ond thot of ihe mognitude A olso o multiple is token corresponding to the number of ports cE contoined in CD, whlch moy be F; ond thct of B o multiple is token corresponding io fhe multiple thot A is of its port cE, which moy be G; then I soy thot the condition of CD in respect oÍ B, os to being equol, exceeding ond folling short, is the some os ihe condition of F in respect of G, so thot F, which is o multiple of A, corresponds in corrdition with cD, which is ports of A, ond G corresponds in condition with B, oÍ which it is o multiple, if CD is equol to B, then F is equol to G; ond if cD is greoter thon B, then F is greoter thon G; ond, if CD is less thqn B, then F is less then G. The proof of this is, thot G is the some multiple of B os A is of cE; ond olso, thot F is the some multiple of A os CD is of cE. Therefore A is o multiple of cE. Now the some multiple is token of A ond cE, which ore F ond CD, so thot F is the some multiple of CD os A is of cE. And A is the some multiple of CE os G is of B, therefore F is fhe some multiple o{ cD os G is of B. Consequently if cD is equol to B, then olso its mulriple, which is F, is equol to G, which is the some multiple of B; ond if CD is less thon B, then olso F is less thon G; ond if CD is greoter thon B, then olso F is greoter ihon G (12). This is whot we inten_



ó 7


13 14 15

17 18 19 20

Now thot this is cleor we soy: When we F+-+-'+{ +4{ intend to compore some mognitude with on F--9--{ # G other mognitude by meons of its ports, ond # substitute o multiple of eoch of them for the ports in the woy we hove illustroted in this diogrom, then oll is cleor to us obout the multiples whot wos cleor to us obout





22 23 24 25


unless, i{ the multiple of the íirst exceeds the multiple oÍ thu ,..ond, the multiple oi the third too will exceed. the murtipre o{ the fourth, ond if the murtipre of the iirst is equol to the multiple of the second, the multiple.of the third is io the multiple of the fourth, ond if the multiple of the íirst fqlis shorr of the multiiie "qrolof the second, rhe multiple of the third folls,short of the.multiple of the fourth. Àt--t soy: when fhe multiples ore in ihis condition, then the poris ore in the first-mentioned condition. And whot of one of these two conditions is found to be sotisfied is found to U" *t.rrËJ of the other too, ond the proportionolity of the mognitudes in order is ossured, ond the rotio of the first ro the second is os the rotio of the third Ío the fourth. For insïonce, let ihe mognitudes be A, B, C, D, ond let the oforesoid condition os to

the,ports, os to being equol ond exceeding ond Íolling short. And likewise, when we convert-this proposition, (H) we soy: when two mognitu--des ore difÍerent, ond when of eqch of them o different multiple 'is token, ihen th-e condiÍion of th" ,rttiple o,f one mognitude in respecf of murtiple of lhe other mognitude is (the condition) oÍ being .the equol, exceeding or Íolling short in occordonc" *Íh the condition of certoin porË of one of both mognitudes 'in respect of the other mognitude, *n"n the denominotor of the ports is the number of the multiple toke"n oí the mognitude thot is not ported, ond the number of is equol io the number ol'the multiple token ,the -ports of ported mognitude. Therefore it is sound whot we hove soid ond mentioned -the beíore, viz. if. multiples ore substituted Íor ports they do not give up onything of them nor do they closh with it. Euclid now, insteod of toking poris of the second ond the Íourth ond comporing of them wirh its componion, r meon comporing the ports of rhu ,á.ond with theeoch firsl mognitude ond comporing the ports of the Íouith mognitude with the third mognituJe, only tokes o some multiple of the second ond the fo"urth ond ,ubrtitut", the Àulriples of eoch oÍ them Íor iis porïs, ond tokes o some multiple of rhe first ond the third ond subsiifutes the multiple oÍ eoch of them for lïselÍ; ond oll thol is cleor in the cose of the multiples ond hoppens with them in respect oÍ the multiple oi the other is cleor of the porrs. ond hoppens wirh them in respecr ;ï í; other mognitudls.".:g:" We will illustrqte this further with. on exomple ond soy, W'hen there or" fou1. ,oónitrJur, ond when, whotever ports 'equol in number ond denominqtion be token oÍ the second crnd the Íourth, the ports of the second ore nor foun'd to exceed the first mognituJe, unless the ports of the fourth ore found to exceed,the third mognitude, ona tÈ. port. of the second ore not Íound to Íoil short of ihe first mognitudË, unless the pori, ot the fourth ore found Ío foll short of the third mognitude, ànd the ports of the second ore not Íound to be equol .to .ihe Íirst mognitude, unless the ports of the fourih ore íound equol fo the third mognitude; then oll ,oru,rtiifl", tok"n of the firsr ond the third ond oll some muJtiples token of ihe second ond the fourth ore not found,



first will not be found to foll shori of the multiple of ihe ,".ona, unless the ,rHrfià oÍ tháthird foo be found to foll short o{ the multiple of the Íourrh. The prooÍ is thot it con nof be otherwise. For ii such were possible, let be ïqken oí A ond c eq_uimultiples, which moy be E (ond) F, ond of d ond D equimultiples, which moy be G ond H, whire rhe condirion of E in' ,"rpu.i .i è Áu unrike r,he condition of F in respect of H os to being equor, exceeding or foiling short; (e.g.) E greoter thon G o'd F not greoter ïhon H,-if such *"r" poriible. Let us now toke of B the port denominoted ofter the number of the multiple ihor E is oÍ A ond F is oÍ C, {or these ore the some. This moy be KL. And of D the some port, wiich ,oy bu MN. ïhbn.we moke KO, which muit be the some murtipre oÍ KL os C i, oÍ B ond H is of D, for these ore ihe some. Likewise we moke Mp, which must be rhe some multiple oÍ YN o: these multiples were. fg-* Ko is ports of B, ond Mp is rhe some ports oÍ D. Therefore A ond B ore.two different mognitudes, ond of one oÍ them, viz. B, ports ore Íoken, viz. Ko, ond of B olso o muliiple is token, viz. G, rhe number oÍ which is. the number oí the ports in Ko; ond of A q multiple is tqken, viz. E, fhe number of which is the denominotor of ihe ports, in respect of which it hos been demonstroted in. the foregoing proposition fhot the condition oÍ E in respect ol C iu like the condition of A in respect of Ko, os to being equol, exceed,ing ond Íolling short.-Now we supposed E to be greoter thon G, ond thereÍore A is greoter tr,oÀ ro. The some conduct is ïhot. of the mognirudes C (ond) D ond iheir ,rlrifl", ond their ports, so thot the condirion of F in respect of H is like the condition of C in ,u.pJ ?f Mf, os to being equol or exceeding or foiling short. But F wos not greoter thon H, thereÍore c is not greoter thon Mp; ona R is gieoter thon KO, ond KO ond Mp ore ports equol in number ond denominotion oÍ B ánd D. Therefore pqris ore found of B, viz. KO, less thon A, ond ports ore íound of D, viz. Mp, not ress thon c. This is o contrqdiction, it is im.possible, becouse we hove supposed obout ihe mognitudes thoi no ports oÍ them could be íound but in the condiiion we hove mentioneios to being equol or exceeding or folling short; hence it is cleor thot when the soid condition of the ports is found, fhe condition.oÍ the multiples is found too ond the proportionolity is found. And oÍ this we wonted Íhe proof.

the ports be Íound; I meon thot, whoiever equivolent ports ore token of B ond D, -o the ports of B ore not fo_und (K) to exceed A, unless the ports of ioo exceed c, ond the ports of B ore not Íound to be equol to.A, unless ïhe ports of D too uu to.c,. ond the ports of B ore not Íound to foll short oÍ A, unless the porrs "quoi of D too foll short of C; then I soy ihot whotever some multiple be token of Íhe ÍirsÍ ond the third, ond whotever some multiple be token of the second ond ihe àurth, the multiple oí the first will not be found to exceed the multiple of the seconJ, unless rhe multi,fle of Íhe third too be found to the multiple of the fourth, onJ th" rnrttipte or in" ,exceed





9 10

13 14

16 17 18 19 20

23 24






(L) By the some Procedure it is mode cleor to us, iÍ we suppose obout these


of the multiPles

thot the




found, thot the condition oí


the ports is Íound too, ond




thot the proPortionolitY


of As it is cleor now conclusively thoi the deÍinition oÍ rcrtio by meons multiples'.ond with likewise Íound is ports with íound is thot oll thot ir-rorna,-ond ore equol' os thot these two methods to reoch the truth ond to oscertoin the soundness whot the necessory moke them of one does nor other to ihe one oÍ them is not opposÀd



necessory, so we a".iorus impossible or'declore impossible whot the other clolms os or occidentolly "tt,"r is odditionolly soy thot the seoichlng o{ proofs obout rotio ond whot thon with elegont more is multiples with this oÍ connected with it ond tÀe investigotion multiples toke to thot is these of One reosons. mony for ports ond is more convenient but .to multiple; high o of eoch of the two mognitudes is not diÍficulr, be ii o low or mognitude, thot ex1e9d ports these thoi ioke ports of some mog"nitucle in such.o woy is difficult os it orises from crnd to coll whot is gráter ihon the thing poris of it, thot

on unusuol concePtion. ii. This we mentioned olreody Ëo,. in fort, of o thing i, only expressed whot is less thon 'prefoce ond strive to toke porÍs view this ovoid we of this writing. lf thereÍore in the 'gr"of"r oÍ the two (ámponions) only, be it the ontecedent or the consequent' áf th" greoter oÍ ontecedeni then we ore not ollowed nor oble to do so beÍore we know the wont onything o{ the not d.o we ond consequent in.uery.oru of o rotio. with multiples knows who hos ïried he only the difiiculty with f.i.a. in" íocility oÍ thil ál .ompored os by meons of well os ports of meons by rotio o{ Jeíinition the exposition of the oÍ reseorch ond diÍÍiculty rrltlplur, Íor there is between them o lorge difference in of rotio de{inition the out corry would owkwordness of exposition. Moreover iÍ wL



thot ore odvonced by meons of ports, *u *orta hove to olter the necessory propositions into ports. But multiples {rom them tronspose io hove would we ií the fiÍth book, ond of multiples cose ïhe in becouse toking ports gives more intork ond di{Íiculty in reseorch, poris one oÍ cose the in whereos number, some rn",i"g.ituj" is only multiplied by besides (one crnd porïs the of denominoiors the of ports ond the needs the number of orithmetic is eosier thon the needs) the whole. truif iÁ" kno*t"age of rhe lorge in kind of sciences we hove {ound oll in krrowledge oí tf," rn.''oí;. The oncieni scholors to reckon with froctions hod who them omong ïhose in the some *oy. ror


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful