Revue d'histoire des sciences

Transmission into use : The evidence of marginalia in the medieval

Euclides latinus / Transmission et usage : La signification des
marginalia dans Euclides latinus médiéval
John E. Murdoch

Résumé
RÉSUMÉ. — Les versions latines médiévales des Éléments d'Euclide traduisent une préoccupation pour la didactique, les
questions logiques et les problèmes philosophiques. De la même façon, les marginalia de ces manuscrits soulignent ces trois
traits de l'Euclide médiéval. L'ensemble des textes et marginalia donne la version d'Euclide la mieux adaptée aux besoins de
l'étudiant de la faculté des arts dans les universités médiévales.

Abstract
SUMMARY. — Medieval Latin versions of Euclid's Elements reflect a concern with didacticism, logic issues, and philosophical
concerns. Marginalia in the manuscrits of these versions similarly emphasize these three characteristics of the medieval Euclid.
Overall, both versions and marginalia presented a Euclid that was most fitting to the student in the faculty of arts at medieval
universities.

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Murdoch John E. Transmission into use : The evidence of marginalia in the medieval Euclides latinus / Transmission et usage :
La signification des marginalia dans Euclides latinus médiéval. In: Revue d'histoire des sciences, tome 56, n°2, 2003. pp. 369-
382;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rhs.2003.2191

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-4105_2003_num_56_2_2191

Fichier pdf généré le 08/04/2018

 Transmission into use :
The evidence of marginalia
in the medieval Euclides latinus

John E. Murdoch (*)

RÉSUMÉ. — Les versions latines médiévales des Éléments d'Euclide

traduisent une préoccupation pour la didactique, les questions logiques et les problèmes
philosophiques. De la même façon, les marginalia de ces manuscrits soulignent ces
trois traits de l'Euclide médiéval. L'ensemble des textes et marginalia donne la
version d'Euclide la mieux adaptée aux besoins de l'étudiant de la faculté des arts
dans les universités médiévales.
MOTS-CLÉS. — Euclide latin ; marginalia dans les manuscrits
mathématiques médiévaux ; philosophie médiévale et Euclide ; mathématiques dans les
universités médiévales.
SUMMARY. — Medieval Latin versions of Euclid's Elements reflect a concern
with didacticism, logic issues, and philosophical concerns. Marginalia in the
manuscrits of these versions similarly emphasize these three characteristics of the medieval
Euclid. Overall, both versions and marginalia presented a Euclid that was most
fitting to the student in the faculty of arts at medieval universities.
KEYWORDS. — Euclid latinus ; Marginalia in medieval mathematical
manuscripts ; medieval philosophy and Euclid ; mathematics in medieval universities.

When Euclid's Elements was transmitted to the Latin West via

Islam, it was not simply passed on, but the character of the work
had been changed from that we find in the Greek (1). The thesis of

(*) John E. Murdoch, Harvard University, Department of the history of science,

Science Center 371, One Oxford Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA.
(1)1 have briefly sketched the fundamentals of this case of « transmission with
transformation » (as well as the rather different case of Aristotle) in a paper delivered in
Moscow in 1971 at the Xlllth International Congress of the History of Science entitled «
Transmission and Figuration : An Aspect of the Islamic Contribution to Mathematics, Science,
and Natural Philosophy in the Latin West ». This paper has now been published in an
uncorrected form in The Commemoration Volume of Biruni International Congress in
Rev. Hist. Set, 2003, 56/2, 369-382
370 John E. Murdoch

the present paper is that these changes were confirmed and

developed when scholars in the Latin West studied their Euclid and put
him to use, and that one of the most important sources we have
establishing that this was so can be found in the marginalia extant
in thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth-century manuscripts of the
Latin versions of the Elements.
However, before turning to the evidence provided by these
marginalia, it is necessary to say something of the nature of the
medieval Euclid to which they were attached (2). To begin with, one
must realize that, within the history of the translation, or more
broadly the transmission, of a Greek work to the Latin West, the
position occupied by Euclid's Elements is unique. This uniqueness
derives fundamentally from the fact that no work - be it
mathematical, astronomical, philosophical, or medical, no matter - had
anywhere near the number of Medieval versions. What is of
significance here is not, however, merely the attendant greater
multiplicity, but the fact that in most instances we have to do with what is
most accurately termed «versions» and not with translations in
the proper sense of the word. From version to version the
enunciation of each proposition remained relatively constant, but the
proofs suffered an amazing latitude of variation. Of this, the
medieval Latin scholar was well aware ; even to the point of
claiming that the enunciations alone arrived via Arabic while the
proofs or commenta, as they were more frequently called, were the
fruits of more contemporary indigenous efforts (3). In effect, as
long as the enunciations of the propositions - and also of the
definitions, postulates, and axioms - expressed the same thing, one
could vary considerably the proofs of the propositions and still
have the same mathematical work. Indeed, many of the different

Tehran, B. English and French Papers (Tehran, 1976), 407-437 and in Proceedings of the
First International Symposium for the History of Arabic Science, Aleppo, April 5-12, 1976,
vol. 2, 108-122.
(2) In what follows, I shall be giving but a brief summary of what I have said about the
character of the medieval Euclid in : The Medieval Euclid : Sahient Aspects of the
Translations of the Elements by Adelard of Bath and Campanus of Novara, Revue de synthèse, ser.
Ill, 49-52 (1968), 67-94 ; and Euclid : Transmission of the Elements, Dictionary of Scientific
Biography, vol. 4 (New York : Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), 437-459.
(3) This appears in a (hardly legible) marginalium in ms. VI 5417, f° 56 r° : « Nota is ta
scientia tradita esset in arabico et translata in latinům et solum (?) propositiones scripsit (!) in
arabico, postea diversi diversimode... (illeg. sed glossaverunt ?), scilicet boetius, al phy
nedius (?!), campanus. »
Transmission into use... 371

medieval Latin versions that we have of the Elements - many of

them extant in but a single manuscript - repeat not only the same
« substance » for the enunciations, but utilize the same translation
of these enunciations, that presented by what previously was
regarded as the second version of the Elements prepared by Adelard of
Bath (4), while offering proofs that differ in minor or major ways.
It is true, of course, that there did exist a number more exact
and proper translations made both from the Arabic and directly
from the Greek (5). But these more faithful versions did not
become the standard Euclid of the Middle Ages. Such a place of
esteem was held, rather, by just those (much more numerous)
«variant proof» versions centering around the tradition deriving
from the version made by Adelard-Chester in the twelfth century
and supplemented by Campanus of Novara in the thirteenth. Now,
precisely because this, and not a more rigid de verbo ad verbum
translation, became the Euclid of major use, it meant that the
medieval Latin scholar had to do with an Elements that in general
tenor and character was appreciably different from that which we
know from the Greek.

(4) This version is now arguably thought to be by Robert of Chester. It has now been
edited by Hubert L. L. Busard & Menso Folkerts, Robert of Chester's (?) : Redaction of
Euclid's Elements, the so-called Adelard II Version, 2 vols. (Basel-Boston-Berhin : Birkhau-
ser, 1992). In what follows this will be referred to as the Adelard-Chester version. The
Busard-Folkerts publication contain numerous additiones and marginalia in a series of
addenda in vol. 2. However, these are by no means all of the marginalia occurring in the mss
of Adelard-Chester. In any event, they do flot contain the marginalia or additiones that are
cited in the present article.
(5) An extremely accurate translation was made in the twelfth century by an
anonymous translator who also translated Ptolemy's Almagest from the Greek (see John Murdoch,
Euclides Graeco-Latinus : A Hitherto Unknown Medieval Latin Translation of the Elements
Made Directly from the Greek, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 71(1966), 249-302),
but this translation seems to have been very hittle used, if ever. This is now edited by Hubert
L. L. Busard, The Medieval Latin Translation of Euclid's Elements made directly from the
Greek (Stuttgart : Steiner, 1987). Two versions made from the Arabic that can also properly
be called translations are those by Gerard of Cremona and the first of three versions by
Adelard of Bath. These have also been edited by Busard : The First Latin Translation of
Euclid's Elements Commonly Ascribed to Adelard of Bath (Toronto : Pontifical Institute of
Mediaeval Studies, 1983) and The Latin translation of the Arabic version of Euclid's Elements
commonly ascribed to Gerard of Cremona (Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1984). On these see the article
of Marshall Clagett (in which the clear distinction of three Adelardian versions first
appears) : The Medieval Latin Translations from the Arabic of the Elements of Euchid with
Special Emphasis on the Versions of Adelard of Bath, his, 44 (1953), 16-42.
372 John E. Murdoch

The character of the Adelard-Chester

and Campanus Euclid

By way of preface to the examination of what we can learn

from the marginalia in medieval Latin manuscripts of the Elements,
something must be said very briefly of just what kind of changes
were introduced into the «proper» Euclid provided by Adelard-
Chester and Campanus. These changes can be most adequately
summarized, I think, by seeing that they consisted in a newly found
awareness of and emphasis upon three things : didacticism, the
logic of the Elements, and the relation of its contents to more
general philosophical questions and conceptions (6).
Didacticism. Perhaps the most immediate impression one derives
from these versions is that there is an extraordinary amount of
reflection or talk about the proposition at hand and about what
the geometer is doing, or should be doing, in its proof. The
language is, to use a modem term, metamathematical. One is not
merely doing mathematics, but reflecting on what this doing
involves. Thus, in the most popular Adelard-Chester rendition, one is
more often not given a proper proof, but rather given appropriate
instructions concerning the correct procedure to follow should one
wish to carry out such a proof. One is constantly informed, for
example, how to effect the constructions required for the
proposition in question, which previous propositions or principles are to
be utilized in its proof, and what kind of argument (direct or reduc-
tio ad impossibile) is to be applied. And often that is all that is
given in the proof. Such a Euclid was a natural invitation for the
medieval scholar to provide what was missing, whether by
preparing a tolerably new version with more complete proofs in the body
of the text itself or by giving something of the same in the margins.
Viewed from another aspect, such features belie a shift in
emphasis that is characteristic of the whole Adelard-Chester and
Campanus tradition : that is, a Euclid that is far more replete with
didacticism than its Greek progenitors. This trait is further empha-

(6) See, in particular, the first of the articles cited in n. 2.

Transmission into use... 373

sized by ail manner of other « foreign » matter introduced into the

proofs in these versions (7). Thus, one comes upon a careful
labelling of each section of a proof (exemplum, dispositio, ratiocinatio,
conclusio, etc.), one finds attention drawn to « sister » propositions
spread throughout the work (where the « same thing » is proved,
for example, of magnitudes and then again of numbers), or one
finds a substitute or added proof secundum numéros of a single
proposition where nothing of the sort is present, or even allowed by
Euclid himself (a feature that suggests an incipient erosion of the
strict separation of number and magnitude so carefully preserved
in Greek mathematics). Alternatively, the same concern for
pedagogy is evident when, in order to render an unusually complex
point clearer for a prospective pupil, an occasional appeal is made
to illustrative material failing outside mathematics, and when notes
are made of the possible « applications » of a theorem in music,
astronomy or some other discipline.
These instances of concern for didacticism arose in the course
of its passage through Arabic to Latin, made possible by the fact
that the translationes involved allowed, even required, a good share
of originality when it came to the rendition of proofs. And as
original, these proofs changed the Elements and made it, among other
things, much more of the nature of a « school-book » Euclid.
Logic and philosophy. But the ever present importations and addi-
tiones of these medieval versions introduced other changes as well.
Two of them were even more consonant with what one might
imagine a good scholastic Euclid to be than the didacticism mentioned
thus far. These were an ever present concern with the logic of the
Elements and, hard on its heels, a specific emphasis upon principia
(definitiones, petitiones and communes animi conceptiones ; that is,
what we call in our Euclid, definitions, postulates, and axioms),
upon what might be best termed « foundational issues », and upon
the relevance of the geometry being transmitted to problems that
were of special philosophical importance. One can witness, for
example, an increased awareness of the possible logical « gaps » in
the Elements. And the comments we have noted that specified the
methods, assumptions, and previous propositions utilized in a proof
speak to a similar preoccupation with logical matters. And so do the

(7) Just which things (here conflated) belong to which version can be seen by referring
to the two articles cited in n. 2 above.
374 John E. Murdoch

innumerable axioms added everywhere throughout the text of the

medieval Euclid. As if this were not scholastic enough in taste, a
directly related interest in the philosophical can be seen in the
frequent lengthy additiones or notanda a proof suffers whenever it, or its
enunciation, bears even remotely upon such medieval objects of
fascination as the infinite and the continuum, to mention but the two
most recurrent instances of the kind of concern at hand.
How many of these changes presented by these particular Latin
versions of the Elements have sources in the Arabic Euclid ? Until
a good deal more work has been done on the relevant Arabic texts,
this question cannot, unfortunately, be answered in any properly
informed way. We do know, however, that not all of the added
material in Adelard-Chester and Campanus tradition could have
come from some Arabic original (8). Still, we do have a
considerable amount of evidence that similar changes (especially the move
toward the didactic) were already existent in the Arabic, or even
the Greek, Euclid (9). How closely they match the changes present
in the medieval Latin or to what extent they may have been
paraphrased or, alternatively, expanded in making their way
(presuming some did) to the Latin West, remains to be determined.

Marginalia and the medieval reception of Euclid

The kinds of changes of which we have been speaking were

reaffirmed and considerably broadened when the medieval Latin
put his Euclid to use. Short of the presently impossible
examination of the majority of citations of the Elements in original
scholastic works, the evidence must here be drawn from
basically two kinds of sources : marginalia in our medieval Euclid
codices (10) and the additional vefsiones prepared from the Ade-

(8) Thus, one finds reference to a Boethian arithmetical doctrine, and an allusion to
Ovid and proverbial classical expressions (see notes 15, 16 and 17 in the first article cited in
n. 2 above).
(9) See Bernard Vitrac's, Les scholies grecques aux Éléments d'Euclide, in the present
volume.
(10) Sample codices - many of which will be utihized in what follows - containing
numerous marginalia are (to use the standard abbreviation for mss citation) : Oxford, Bodl.
Auct. F.5.28, iir-xliv, lr°-15r°; Camb. Gonv. & Caius 504/271, 30v°-86r°; Naples, BN
Transmission into use... 375

lard-Chester base (for these were in all likelihood formulated later

on in the Latin West and, in at least some instances, seem to be
the product of utilizing Euclid in university teaching) (11).
Some note of the character of at least the first of these sources
is in order before we turn to what they can reveal. To begin with,
marginalia seem far more prevalent in manuscripts of the Adelard-
Chester Elements than in those of other versions. This could,
however, be predicted, since Adelard-Chester is far and away the most
compendious medieval Euclid of all ; it was more in need of
marginal expansion (12). Secondly, the very fact that there already
existed a multiplicity of versions before the real floruit of scholastic
endeavor, furnished any potential marginal glossator with a ready
made cache of relevant material. He could, and often did, fill the
margins of one version with pertinent remarks (often whole
alternate proofs) drawn from one or more other versions (13). Even the
rarest of earlier versions found themselves so cited (14).
Yet in addition to producing such (at least partial) « multiple »
versions, marginalia were often original creations. But this does not
mean that they remained unique. For such marginalia were
frequently in turn copied into other codices, so in some instances we
now have more manuscripts of certain series of marginalia than we
do of a given complete, independent version of the Elements
itself (15).

VIII. C. 22, lr°-45v°; Vat. Ottob. lat. 1862, 1 r°-19 r° ; Paris, BN lat. 11245, 1 r°-57 v° ;
Munich, CLM 3523, 3r°-21v°; Oxford, CCC 251, 22r°-83r°; London, BM, Harl. 5266,
1 r°-126 v° ; Vienna, BN VI 5417, 56 r°-74 v° ; Florence, BN, Magi. XI, 112, 1 r°-160 r°.
(11) Such variant versions are found, for example, in the following mss : Oxford,
CCC 234, 1 v°-170 r° ; Oxford, Bodl. D'Orville 70, 1 r°-39 r° ; London, BM Sloane 285, 2 r°-
14 v°; Vatican, Reg. lat. 1268, 1 r°-69 r° ; Paris, BN lat. 7215, 4r°-13v°. Some of these
appear to be variants of Adelard-Chester, others developments of Campanus, but their
precise relation to previous, more standard, versions remains to be determined.
(12) Thus, of the mss cited in n. 10 the first seven are of Adelard-Chester, the last three
of Campanus.
(13) Thus, there are numerous references to the so-called Adelard III in Bodl. Auct.
F . 5 . 28, Camb. G & С 504/271, and Oxford, CCC 251, all of which are mss of the Adelard-
Chester version (Recently this has been edited by Busard as Johannes de Tinemue's Redaction
of Euclic's Elements, the so-called Adelard III version (Stuttgart : Franz Steiner, 2001) ; I
have not yet seen this publication). And BM 5266 (a Campanus version) refers to the
translation of Gerard of Cremona and to the Latin translation of the commentary of al-Nayrizi
(there called « Hanalicius »).
(14) Thus, Naples VIII. C.22, 19 r° has a reference to the relatively rare BoethianAde-
lardian melanges found in Paris, BN 10257.
(15) To cite a single instance, marginalia are repeated in mss Bodl. Auct. F.5.28,
Camb. G & С 504/271, and Oxford, CCC 251.
376 John E. Murdoch

Finally, note should be made of the fact that the predominance

of marginalia in Books I- VI of the Elements should probably not
be taken merely as evidence of the tendency of the medieval
Euclidean glossator to tire before his task was half done, but rather also
of the fact that we here have to do with one of the results of the
emphasis found on just these early books in university
statutes (16). At least some marginalia, then, must be viewed as the
fruits of university study and teaching.
Let us now turn to the contents of these marginalia and (though
less so) of several late alternate versions. By far the greatest
number are devoted to repeating, or inventing, whole or partial
alternative proofs for the propositions at hand. But if we look at those
that give something more than a simple variant proof, we find
substantial evidence of a continuing interest in the same kinds of
changes we have found characteristic of the Adelard-Chester and
Campanus versions whose codices these marginalia adorn : those
changes that bespeak an emphasis on didacticism, logic, and the
relevance of Euclid to philosophy (17).
Didacticism. This is often met in the very first margináliím which
frequently was intended as a kind of introduction to the whole.
This might take the form of a rather lengthy description of the
nature and kinds of scientia mathematica itself. Mathematics, both
pure and applied - namely, geometry and arithmetic on the one
hand, and music, astronomy, and optics on the other -, are
concerned with the (Aristotelian) category of quantity, etc. (18).

(16) In some instances, however, the arithmetical books VII-IX were also singled out
for study.
(17) We have evidence of the same interest even when the marginalia are not original
but rather taken from other Adelardian versions or Campanus, since then just what is taken
reveals a similar interest in these three factors.
(18) « Mathematica sic communiter describitur. Mathematica est scientia rei vel rerum
principaliter considérons secundum rationem pertinentem predicamento quantitatis per
modum speciei vel generis vel passionis. Et ilia diffinitio convenit omni mathematice tarn
pure quam médie vel impure. Et termini de predicamento quantitatis sunt termini mathema-
tici ut duplum, triplus, quadruplum, et cetera. Nota mathematica est duplex, scilicet pura et
impura sive media. Рига est que precise considérât rem secundum rationes predicamenti
quantitatis proprie pertinentes absque rationum aliarium. Sed media est que considérât rem
suam secundum rationem proprie pertinentem predicamento que huiusmodi dictis superaddit
alias rationes. Nota quomodo solet distingui mathematica, scilicet due pure, puta (?) geome-
tria et arismetrica, et très impure, scilicet musica, astronomia et perspectiva » (Vienna,
BN VI 5417, 56 r°).
Transmission into use... У11

Another type of introductory marginalium that was more

frequent in its appearance dealt with one or another kind of divisio of
what constituted the somewhat massive opus that followed. Such
divisiones occurred in a number of forms. Some simply set out in
proper array the subject matter of each of the fifteen books of the
Elements : Book I determines the properties of the triangle, Book II
that of the quadrangle, III the properties of the circle, IV has to do
with the description of one quantity [viz. circular] by another [viz.
rectilinear], Book V concerns the ratio [or the « proportion »] of
quantities, and so on (19). Other divisiones, rather more interesting
and creative, attempted to divide Euclid according to the kinds of
number and, especially, magnitude he treats. The Elements can be
divided into two parts, the first ten books treat of magnitude taken
absolutely, the last five of corporeal magnitude. This first part is
called planimetria and altimetria, and is itself divided into non-
numbered magnitude taken absolutely (I-VI) and, in Book X,
numbered magnitude, and so on (20).

(19) « Šunt autem Euclidis 15 libri. In primo déterminât Euclides passiones et accidentia
trianguli. In secundo proprietates quadranguli. In tertio accidentia circuit In quarto intendit de
descriptione unius quantitatis per aliam quantitatem. In quinto de proportione quantitatum. In
sexto de similitudine superficierum in dimensionibus ex inequalitate angulorum in proportionali-
tate laterum angulos continentium. In septimo de magnitudine numerali. In octavo de
proportione magnitudinis numeralis speciei ad aliam magnitudinem. In nono de ductione unius numeri
super, ficialis sive cubi in alium numerům superflcialem sive cubum. In decimo de magnitudine
rationali et irrationali et subalternatur arithmetice. In undecimo de cubis secundum quod redu-
cuntur ad naturam circuli (!). In duodecimo de proportionalitate circuli ad circulum in compa-
ratione ad dyametros et quadraturas superficierum. In tertiodecimo de comparatione linearum
quantitatum per quadrata earundem. In quartodecimo de proportione sperarun in comparatione
ad continentiam corporum multiangulorum. In quintodecimo et ultimo de cubis et corporibus
solidis » (Oxford, CCC 234, 9 v°).
(20) « Liber iste in 2 dividitur partes. In prima, scilicet in 10 libris agitur de magnitudine
simpliciter. In secunda, scilicet in 5 libris ultimis de magnitudine que est corpus. Et dicitur pars
prima esse de planimetria et altimetria. Et dividitur in 2 partes ; in prima agit de magnitudine
simpliciter non numérota, scilicet in 6 libris ; in secunda ut in 10° de magnitudmnibus numera-
tis. Septimus autem octavus et nonus sunt de numero simpliciter et vocantur arismetica Euclidis
et sunt quasi de bene esse et antecedentia ad x™. Prima pars dividitur in 2. In prima parte,
scilicet in 4 libris primis agit de magnitudine simpliciter non comparata ; in secunda parte, ut in 6°,
agit de magnitudine comparata. Quintus vero liber non est de esse libri, sed potius de bene esse,
quia est de proportione magnitudinis simpliciter non contracta ad aliquant materiam speciálem,
et sine ea sciri non potest quo determinatur in 6", qui est de magnitudine comparata per propor-
tionem. Item in primo libro agit de triangulis. In secundo de quadrangulis comparando unum ad
alium. In tertio de circulis comparando unum ad alium. In quarto de circulis comparando
circulum adfigurám aliam. Subiectum uniuscuiusque libri per se est illudde cuius partibus probantur
per se passiones in illo libro » (Camb., G & С 504/271, 30 v°). An all but identical
marginalium occurs in Bodl. Auct. F. 5.28, iir and Oxford, CCC 251, 22 r°.
378 John E. Murdoch

If such introductory remarks placed the medieval in a proper

position from which to approach Euclid, other pedagogically based
marginalia assisted him as he struggled through the body of the
text. The proofs of propositions were there to behold, often
themselves expressly didactic in tone. But as if this were not enough, the
« sum and substance » of each theorem could often be conveniently
found in margine : we are told of the mens, sententia, vis, continen-
tia, tenor, and even medulla propositionis (21). Along similar lines,
matters are made pedagogically more effective by extending the
already not too infrequent practice of proofs in numeris of purely
geometrical propositions ; this renders things, we are told, multum
planiora (22). Alternatively, the practice of Adelard-Chester of
drawing special attention to which previous elements are to be
employed in a given proof is carried to all but the point of no
return : each separate geometrical property involved in the
proposition in question is assigned its own battery of requisite predicta to
be utilized, or in one instance we even find them displayed in a
dichotomy diagram (23). And many other instances of essentially
didactic marginalia could be cited as well.
Logical concerns. Of course, precisely those logical concerns we
have already seen as characteristic of Adelard-Chester and Campa-
nus are marginally repeated in new instances. But the interest in
logic is carried beyond remarks about the structure of particular
proofs or about the axioms tacitly assumed in carrying them out.
On the other hand, the problem of whether Euclid contains logical
superfluities is carried further (24), but even more interesting is
the development of considerations concerning the precise function
of mathematical principia. We are told why specific postulates or
petitiones are needed, why they occur as postulates, why they are
asserted in the infinitive, and from whence they gain their evi-

(21) The terms are found in ms. Bodl. Auct. F. 5.28.

(22) Thus, in commenting on Book V, definition 8 (which has to do with magnitudes),
ms. Oxford, CCC 234, 6 r° says : « In numeris autem šunt ista multum planiora. »
(23) Ms. Florence, BN Magi. XI, 112, unfoliated, but relative to Book VII, prop. I.
(24) Especially significant in this regard is the question raised concerning the apparent
repetitiveness of Euchid's arithmetical Books, VII-IX when compared to Book V. Here, a
marginal comment in Bodl. Auct. F . 5 . 28 (f° xviv) seems to fail to appreciate thoroughly the
strict distinction Greek mathematics made between number and magnitude : « Differunt hii
très libri a 5, quia ibi demonstratur universaliter de quant itate, hic de quantitate discreta que
est numerus. Sed videtur superfluere hec doctrina. Nam habita demonstratione universali, facile
est ad particularem descendere. Nee eget hec nova doctrina, ut videtur. »
Transmission into use... 379

dence (25). In a similar fashion, attention is drawn to the logical

status of axioms. Indeed, the status of ail prima principia was much
in mind. In one instance, we appear to have a record of some
disagreement over just which kind of primům principium was at stake.
The locus is the definitions to Book III of the Elements. Of the first
principle here [viz. Equal circles are those whose diameters or radii
are equal], some say that it is a postulate, others an axiom, and a
third group a definition, etc. (26).
On the other hand, the logic of propositions as well as principia
is also noted. As might be expected, most of this concern was
directed to the question of just which propositions implied which other
propositions. Yet some attention is paid to the question of why,
logically speaking, certain propositions that might be expected to
appear, do not and should not appear. An instance of this is
provided by the following proposition : If the sides of some triangle be all
equal, the angles thereof are necessarily equal ; for this can be
proved by I, 5 of Euclid standing alone, etc. (27). Considerations of
economy seemed to have attracted the medieval mind as well.
Relevance to philosophy. Our marginalia and late alternate versions
naturally carry on the already traditional remark indicating the
possible practical applications of all manner of propositions within
astronomy, music, and the quite separate medieval discipline
known as geometria practica (28). Yet of greater significance, I

(25) London, BM Harl. 5266, lv : « Nota hic quod omneš iste petitiones ponuntur ab
Euclide sub injinitivo modo, tanquam dicta, non ut propositiones. Et apellantur suppositiones
vel petitiones quoniam supponuntur et petuntur concedi nee probantur. Dicuntur enim sufjicien-
tem evidentiam habere ex solo confuso terminorum conceptu. »
(26) « Quorum diametri et cetera. Hie inclpit tertia distinctio in qua premittuntur XI
principia, de quorum prima dubitatur. Dicunt enim quidam quod est petitio, alu dicunt ipsum esse
communem animi conceptionem, tertii asserunt ipsum esse diffinitionem ; sed in aliis omnes
consentiunt, quia omnes asserunt ea esse anxiomata litter a plana est. » (Vat. Reg. lat. 1268,
16 r°.)
(27) « Si fuerint alique propositiones que sequuntur ex una sola, aut non ponuntur tales
aut, siponantur, ponuntur ut corellarie. Talis est ista : Sifuerunt latera omnia alicuius trianguli
equalia, omnes angulos equates esse necesse. Nam hec potest probari per quintam solam [i.e.,
by Euchid I, 5] alia non coasumpta. Item si omnes anguli equates, omnia latera equalia erunt.
Item corelaria que non multum prosunt ad demonstrationes aliarum propositionum amittuntur,
alia vero ponuntur. » (Camb., G & С 504-/271, 31 v°.) In order properly to understand this,
the first part of Adelard-Chester and Campanus reads : « Omnis trianguli duum equalium
laterum angulos qui supra basin equates esse necesse est. »
(28) Thus, we find the following marginal comment on Book I : « Ex 5" et 29й et б" соп-
clusione huius primi practica est quod extrahi potest mensurandi altitudines : supposito quod ad
pedes mensurantis /tguratur quedam virga equalis longitudinis ipsi mensuranti ita quod radii
380 John E. Murdoch

think, is the « application » of Euclid to philosophy. Such would

surely have been of more immediate interest to the average Arts
students. Again marginalia correspond to and extend the moves in
this direction already made by Adelard-Chester and Campanus.
Any relevance to such philosophically pregnant notions as the
infinite, continuity, indivisibility, the incommensurability of the
diagonal of a square, and the possibility of circle quadrature seldom
goes unnoticed. In this regard, the consideration of what Aristotle
had to say about mathematics and such notions was a favorite
object of concern. Aristotle's view {Physics, III, 7, 207 b 27-34)
furnishes a good case in point, for here he claims that mathematics is
in no need of infinite magnitutes ; it is sufficient to have finite
magnitutes extended as far as one wishes (29).
As is natural, all remarks, both within the versio or text and in
the margins, that directed their attention to the consideration of
principles were of philosophical interest, a fact that jibes well with
later Questiones literature on the Elements. For when such Questio-
nes super Euclidem were in fact on Euclid, the predominant
preoccupation was with the function, truth, and meaning of definitions,
postulates, and axioms. This, plus an examination of the nature of
the scientia mathematica to which they belonged, all but exhausted
their concern with the geometry of the Elements (30). Particular
propositions, at least in such literature, were not of major concern.
Yet one can plausibly claim that even here, the interest in the
philosophically pertinent in Euclid, just as the interest in elements of
didactic and logical import, is related to the change suffered by the
Elements in its transmission to the Latin West at the hands of Ade-

egredientes ab oculis mensurantis lineariter tendant ad summitatem altitudinis mensurande, sup-

posito etiam quod mensurans stat in piano ; et ista patet in figura superscripta. » (Camb., G
& С 504/271, 31 v°.) For the «practical» relevance of propositions in the version called
Adelard III, see notes 54-59 of the first article cited in n. 2 above.
(29) « Nota ab Aristotele in fine tertii physicorum quod mathematica non indigent ponere
magnitudinem infinitam, sed indigent ponere magnitudinem in quacumque quantitate voluerint,
et postea ponere magnitudmnem maiorem celo, ut dicit commentator nee tamen indigent ponere
magnitudinem infinitam, quia idem potest facer e, magnitudine existente finita. Unde solum
indigent magnitudinem ita esse extensa ut ab ipsa extrahere possent, quantumcumque voluerint. »
(Bodl. Auct. F.5.28, i iv.)
(30) See the questiones of Nicole Oresme on Euclid, edited by Hubert L. L. Busard
(Leiden : E. J. Brill, 1961), and the unedited questiones ascribed to Radulfus Britonis (e.g., in
ms. Paris, BN lat. 16609, 30 v° - 40 r° & Brussels, BR 3540-47, 1 r° - 32 r°) or the anonymous
questiones in ms. Erfurt, Amplon. Q° 344, 68 r° - 87 r° & Praha, Metr. M. 100 (1459), 21 r° -
48 r°.
Transmission into use... 381

lard-Chester and Campanus of Novara. Traces of this change are

found, that is, in original scholastic tracts as well as in Euclidean
marginalia and late medieval versions of the Elements.
This point can be underlined by considering the relation of
Adelard, Campanus and our marginalia to two further, more
familiar, scholastic tracts : The Communia mathematica of Roger Bacon
and the Geometria speculativa of Thomas Bradwardine.
Bacon's work is naturally all but exclusively directed toward the
contact of mathematics and philosophy and, as such, abounds in
references to Aristotle and expresses an extensive interest in the
function and logic of principia (31). He was also, we know, quite
familiar with the variant Adelard versions of Euclid as well as with
commentators such as the Arabic al-Nayrïzï. It thus is no surprise to
find considerable evidence of the changed Euclid of which we have
been speaking throughout his Communia mathematica. Yet one
instance of this evidence is particularly instructive for our purposes.
Without citing Adelard, or any other translator or commentator,
Bacon formulates ten reasons why demonstrations are valuable in
mathematics, which is to say, in Euclid (32). When he mentions
specific propositions in his listing of these reasons, the results fall neatly
into the substance of the Adelardian Euclid or, if not that, of our
marginalia. Thus, when he cites causa propter famosas propositiones
as one of the reasons why demonstrations are utiles, we find the
incommensurability of the diagonal of the square and that the sum
of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles, both of which
figure predominantly in Aristotle, in Adelard-Chester and our
marginalia. And this is true of those propositions he holds to bepractitu-
dinis immense : 1.34 and III. 15 and 30 (16 & 31 of the Greek). His
fourth reason or causa shows a concern with the possibility of
proving definitions and postulates, again a feature of our changed
Euclid and its marginalia. And even when he comes to complain of
that missing in Euclid, the reflection is the same.
Of course, some of our marginalia may reflect Bacon and not
vice versa, but it is nevertheless clear that much of his understan-

(31) Roger Bacon, Communia mathematica, ed. Robert Steele (Oxford : e Typographeo
Clarendoniano (printed by J. Johnson), 1940), 111, 115, and passim. This work of Bacon's
has now been completed by the late George Molland, Roger Bacon's Geometria Speculativa,
in M. Folkerts and J. P. Hogendijk (éd.), Vestigia Mathematica : Studies in medieval and
early modem mathematics in honour of H. L. L. Busard (Amsterdam/ Atlanta : B. V. Rodopi,
1993), 265-303.
(32) Ibid., 118-120.
382 John E. Murdoch

ding of the Elements has been conditioned by the transformed

Euclid we have been examining.
Thomas Bradwardine's Geometria speculativa is a work
essentially different from that of Bacon (33). Perhaps its most
appropriate description would be that of a primer of elementary
geometry. As such it is less explicitly philosophical. It can be viewed,
however, as a geometry written for philosophers. Indeed, one Fra-
ter Fredericus who copied the work in 1456 expressly claimed that
« this geometrical work contains almost all the geometrical
demonstrations which the Philosopher [Aristotle] brings forth by
way of example in logic and philosophy (34) ». But a good number
of Bradwardine's philosophical concerns are just those one can find
in the text and margins of an Adelard-Chester or Campanus
Euclid (35). The point of interest is not that Bradwardine should
reflect the influence of these versions of Euclid. Almost any
medieval would. But rather that in compiling what he viewed as the
« Essential Euclid », the didactic, logical and philosophical
overtones of these versions have come through so clearly, Adelard-
Chester and Campanus, in many respects, in miniature. The
relation was, moreover, appreciated by the medievals themselves. For
not only do we find marginalia in Euclid manuscripts that are
drawn from Bradwardine (36), but having read his Geometria is
suggested in 1401 as extenuating circumstances, as it were, for a
student in the Vienna Arts Faculty who was deficient in his
Euclid (37).

(Stuttgart
(33) The
: Steiner,
work has
1989).
been edited by George Molland with a translation and commentary
(34) George Molland, The Geometrical Background to the 'Merton School', British
Journal for the History of Science, 4 (1968), 112.
(35) Thus, Bradwardine has many of the same references to Aristotle that are found in
the margins of Euclid manuscripts, makes much of the problem of the « horn angle » (as did
Campanus in his comments to III, 15 & 30), and makes special note of VI, 15 & 16,
propositions which, for example, are marginally noted as being in multis locis utiles (ms. Camb., G
& С 504/271, 43 г0.). In particular, this manuscript specifies (43 r°) that VI, 15 is « utilis ad
tabulas astronomie et alias demonstrationes ».
(36) At times we are even told that the comment is drawn from Bradwardine. For
example, a marginal note on the second postulate of Book I reads : « Per circulum in propo-
sito intelligitur linea circularis seu circumferentia circuli. Sepe enim nomina figuramum acomo-
datur terminis. Ista declaratio est tome bredvardin in sua parva geometria. » (ms. BM Harl.
5266, 1 v°.)
(37) Paul Uiblein (éd.), Acta facultatis artium universitatis Vindobonensis, 1385-1416
(Graz-Vienna-Cologne : H. Bôhlaus Nachf., 1968), 187 (entry for 2 January 1401) : « Caro-
lus de Kunigshoven qui deficit... in Euclidis (!), sed audivit geometriam Bragwardmni. »