*In his masterpiece, Moritz Cantor remarks that already in 1482 there
were two editions of the "Elements", which differed only on the first
page. To our knowledge, the reason for this second version is unknown.*
What Julio and (may be) Cantor call "second edition" is a second issue of
the first (i.e. first edition with second state of the first page). This is
not playing with words.
And to my knowledge, there is no other edition since 1491.
2) The 1491 edition is in Vincenze all right and not in Venice as I
misplaced it, due to homophony, and heat.
3) Answering to both Julio Gonzalez Cabillon and Menso Folkerts, about the
origin of the text: my modest (outdated?) knowledge came from Michel Chasles
(Apercu historique, troisieme Edition, Paris, Gauthier-Villars 1889, p.511).
He cites Andres (Dell'origine, de progressi, e dello stato attuale d'ogni
litteratura. Parte 1, cap. IX):
"Sei (Campano) non tradusse come si dice comunemente; certo illustro con
comenti l'Euclide, tradotto primo dall'Arabo in Latino dall' Inglese
Atelardo Gotho, come ha fatto vedere il Tiraboschi".
And he cites the title of a manuscript of the Campanus's Euclid (MS.
Bibliotheque Royale, Paris, n. 7213):
"Euclidis philosophi socratici incipit liber Elementorum artis geometricae
translatus ab Arabico in Latinum per Adelardum Gothum Bathoniensem, sub
commento Magistri Campani Novarriensis" (my sublining of course).
I am very happy to learn of new versions in this history, by what Menso
pointed out. Menso certainly knew about this MS?
4) If Menso does not give proofs of Bizantine Greek sources, we are still
on Arabic pattern. What else?
A special thank to our List Moderator who even cares for a better
readability of messages,
Udai Venedem
venedem@wanadoo.fr
conceptor of the site (in French)
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/alta.mathematica/
devoted to mathematical bibliophily.