On 8 Jul 1999 09:16, Karen Dee Michalowicz wrote:
I wouldn't call an Euclid written in any other language than
Latin a "first edition."
Why? And what about the very large Arabic Euclidean corpus (for example),
which is considered by some historians more EUCLIDEAN than the Latin one.
See the master piece of information on the Arabic Euclidean tradition:
KLAMROTH, M. (1881), "Uber den arabischen Euklid" (Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vol. 35: pp. 270-326) and the recent
devastating article: KNORR, Wilbur Richard (1996) ("The wrong text of Euclid:
On Heiberg's Text and its Alternatives", Centaurus, vol. 38: pp. 208-276),
which reopened the debate on the structure of Euclid's Elements, with new
arguments.
Any comments?
By the way, and as some members of this List already know, a short version of
Knorr's article (with new elements), is due to be published in a Special Issue
of Science in Context co-edited by M. Abattouy and P. Weinig (MPIWG, Berlin)
Regards from Berlin
Mohammed ABATTOUY
Max Planck Institut fuer Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Berlin