162 ON THE EARLY 



Dr. Hutton i ? on : " It is more probable, however, that Mahomet 

 " was not tilt or, but only a person well skilled in the art ; and it 



" is further p , that the Arabians drew their knowledge. of it from 



" Diophantu ler Greek writers; and, according to the testimony 



" of Abulpharagius, the arithmetic of Diophantus was translated into 

 " Arabic, by Ma.homet-Bin-Yahya-Baziana." This I suppose is taken 

 from Pococke's translation* but the word which /he has explained by 

 " interpretatus est" is ' V meaning lie ./commented ,on, rather than he 

 translated. Surely, this is not sufficient to give jlse-to a probability, that 

 the Arabians derived their Algebra .from the 'Greeks.. The Algebra of 

 the Arabians bears no resemblance to that of Diofhantus, the only 

 Greek writer on the subject who has ever been heard of. Inquiries have 

 been made, in -different parts.of India mid Persia, for the supposed transla- 

 tion of Diophantus; but without success. In the five first propositions 

 of the 13th book of Euclid., and in the ioth and 1 ith propositions of Ar- 

 chimedes' book on spiral lines, and in the 9th proposition of the 2d 

 book of his Jsorropics, Wallis thought he saw traces of Algebra ; and it 

 is to be presumed, rthat no farther evidence of its existence, among the 

 ancient Greeks, -is discoverable ; for, except the above, I do not know that 

 any authors have been directly quoted, in proof of the argument ; although 

 there has been much assertion, in general terms, that the works of cer- 

 tain writers do contain traces of Algebra. If there were any undoubted 

 marks of it, in the writings of the ancients, they could not have escaped 

 the notice of so learned and so indefatigable a scholar as Wallis. What 

 he says on this subject, appears to result from a prejudiced conviction of 

 the antiquity of the science, and not from an unbiased search for truth. 



* Diophanti librum de Algebra interpretatus est. 



