j592 Mr. Soane on the connexion of Pope Gerbert 



For allowing, on the authority of Cassiodorus, that Boethius indeed 

 translated the Elements, he contends that the translation, which now 

 passes under the name of Boethius, must be considered as spurious, 

 inasmuch as in most MSS. it is found mixed up with the Demons, 

 stratio, and that consequently both must stand or fall together*, i 



Although it is impossible to produce any positive proof in support 

 of the common opinion that the translation we possess is the work 

 of Boethius, still there is a certain amount of negative evidence to 

 that effect. It is not disputed that Boethius did translate the Ele- 

 ments. Besides the testimony of Cassiodorus already alluded to, we 

 find Gerbert, in his Geometry, referring to the definition of some 

 elementary terms in geometry given by Boethius, and which are 

 apparently identical with those which we find in the treatise in ques- 

 tionf. With this we must combine the fact, that until the resto- 

 ration of the Elements in their perfect form at the close of the 

 eleventh century by Adelard's translation from the Arabic, there was 

 no work, so far as is known, which professed to be a translation of 

 Euclid, save and except the meagre list of propositions which now 

 goes under the name of Boethius. 



There seems to be more force in Niebuhr's assertion, that, though 

 the translation is genuine, we have it only in a mutilated form. 

 From the remarks with which Boethius prefaces the demonstrations 

 of the first three propositions of the first book, we may readily as- 

 sume that Boethius adopted the opinion of those who considered 

 that Euclid only arranged the propositions, and that the demon- 

 strations were the work of others J. The admirable literary history 

 of the Elements by Mr. De Morgan, in the 'Dictionary of Classical 

 Biography,' shows how this error may have arisen ; and when we 

 find Boethius confounding Euclid the geometer with his namesake 

 the philosopher of Megara — a most portentous error, and one quite 

 inexcusable in him, — we ought not to be surprised if he also adopted 

 the current opinion on the subject, viz. that Theon and not Euclid 

 was the author of the demonstrations. 



The only argument against the genuineness of the translation which 

 seems to have any weight, is that derived from the circumstance of 



■ii. 



XT-.^ Rliein. Mus. fiir Jurispr. B. vii. p. 235. He conjectures that a part of the 

 genuine translation probably survives in the 14th and 15th books of a mathematical 

 work to be found in a palimpsest MS. at Verona, which is evidently allied to the 

 printed translation of the summary of llypsicles. Whatever grounds there may be 

 for denying the genuineness of the common translation, there can be no doubt that 

 this conjecture is altogether unfounded. For thougli the Elements consist of 

 fifteen books, it is quite clear, as well from the books themselves as from other tes- 

 timony, that the two last were not written by Euclid ; and there are very good 

 grounds for saying that they are the work of Hypsicles, who cannot have written 

 earlier than the middle of the sixth century, that is, at least five-and-twenty years 

 after the death of Boethius. See Mr. De Morgan's articles on Euclid antLUypsicles 

 in the ' Diet, of Classical Biography.' * ni bsjjtnio 



•f Fez, Thes. Anecdot. Noviss. t. iii. part ii. 9. • ,1 ' + 



X P. 1514. See also p. 1487 in. The passage in p. 1542 may also be referred 

 to, not indeed as containing the opinion of Boethius himself — for it occurs in the 

 spurious appendix — but as indicating that generally entertained at the time of its 

 composition. 



