538 Mr. Soane on the connexion of Pope Gerbert 



is far from conclusive, especially as it is founded upon an assumption, 

 the truth of which, in the writer's opinion, is at least doubtful, — 

 that the part of the Geometry containing the passage in question, is 

 the composition of its reputed author. The most cursory exami- 

 nation of the printed treatise will convince the reader that it could 

 not possibly have emanated, in its present form, from " the wise pope 

 who was the instructor of his age." No man of sense would have 

 been so absurd as to repeat the same matter twice or even oftener 

 in so short a compass, or to insert in the body of his book a second 

 introduction, not materially different from the one prefixed to it. 

 Evidently two distinct treatises, the first of which ends with the 

 thirteenth chapter, have been somehow or another confounded in 

 the manuscript, and both have been published as one entire work, by 

 Pez, who has overlooked the internal indications they contain of 

 having originally been unconnected with one another*. If then we 

 have two separate tracts fortuitously united together, which of the 

 two is to be considered as the work of Gerbert ? Unfortunately we 

 have no weighty, much less decisive evidence on this point, and the 

 only, or at least principal reason, which with our present scanty 

 data can be urged in favour of the first and shorter of the two, is, 

 that it is the one which bears his name, not only in the Salzburg, 

 but also in the Arundel MS., which is apparently derived from some 

 other source than the former. 



The writer is inclined to go a step further, and ask. Is there any 

 evidence that Gerbert ever wrote a work on Geometry, or have we 

 any surer grounds for asserting that either of the two treatises which 

 bear his name was actually written by him, than we have for attri- 

 buting the work ' De Divisione Numerorum,' which we know to 

 have been composed by him, to Bedaf , viz., that in some MSS. his 

 name is attached to it .'' Beda, Alcuin, and Gerbert were the repre- 

 sentatives of the learning of their respective centuries ; and to each 

 was ascribed indiscriminately every work of merit, the writer of 

 which was unknowh or forgotten. 



Granting however that Gerbert became acquainted with the Ar- 

 cerian atBobbio, still that fact is far from establishing the conclusion 

 attempted to be drawn from it, as there is reason for believing that 



* This opinion seems to receive some confirmation from the circumstance that 

 tlie Arundel MS. has only the first thirteen chapters, in other words, the first trea- 

 tise. At Chartres there is a MS. (No. \TA), which only has chapters 14-40. The 

 Arundel shows how the two works probably came to be blended into it. The con- 

 cluding words of Gerbert are immediately followed by the opening sentence of Boe- 

 thius, as this is in like manner succeeded by another treatise on geometry or men- 

 suration, without the slightest indication that all three do not form one continuous 

 whole. 



•f The ' Liber ad Grammaticum,' which Richerius (p. (318) says was written by 

 Gerbert, as a companion or guide to the use of the Abacus invented by him, has 

 been printed by M. Chasles, in the Comptes Rendus of the Academic Koyale des 

 Sciences, T. xvi., and is the same tract with that published in Beda's works with 

 the title ' De Divisione Numerorum,' Bed. Opera, t. i. 159, ed. Bas. The treatise 

 of Hermannus Contractus ' De Utilitatibus Astrolabii,' which has also been pub- 

 lished by Pez, from the same Salzburg MS. is attributed to Gerbert in two MSS. 

 Chasles, Catalogue, p. 44. 



