Thus we read these lines in the manuscripts and in the printed editions ; thus the lines were read in the Middle Ages and, perhaps, already in antiquity.

Thus we read these lines in the manuscripts and in the printed editions ; thus the lines were read in the Middle Ages and, perhaps, already in antiquity.

Thus we read these lines in the manuscripts and in the printed editions ; thus the lines were read in the Middle Ages and, perhaps, already in antiquity.

In a recent issue of this journal Professor P. Thielscher criticizes my hypothesis concerning the manuscript tradition of the Silvae of Statius. He censures me for what he calls my ‘errors’ and ‘mistakes’. Here are my answers.

This famous passage has given rise to much discussion and some perplexity. Theodoras the mathematician is represented by Theaetetus as proving the irrationality of the square roots of the numbers from 3 to 17: ‘He took the separate cases up to the root of 17 square feet; and there, for some reason, he stopped.’ The passage is of great importance in the history of Greek mathematics for more than one reason. Theaetetus is said to have generalized the proof of the (...) irrationality of square roots of non-square integers; and thus his connexion with this passage is important because Plato here obviously implies that Theodorus was not giving a generalized proof—otherwise, why should he go up to 17 ? If Theodorus did not know the generalized proof, he clearly had to proceed by enumeration and proof of particular case. (shrink)

This famous passage has given rise to much discussion and some perplexity. Theodoras the mathematician is represented by Theaetetus as proving the irrationality of the square roots of the numbers from 3 to 17: ‘He took the separate cases up to the root of 17 square feet; and there, for some reason, he stopped.’ The passage is of great importance in the history of Greek mathematics for more than one reason. Theaetetus is said to have generalized the proof of the (...) irrationality of square roots of non-square integers; and thus his connexion with this passage is important because Plato here obviously implies that Theodorus was not giving a generalized proof—otherwise, why should he go up to 17? If Theodorus did not know the generalized proof, he clearly had to proceed by enumeration and proof of particular case. (shrink)

It is the purpose of these notes to make a contribution towards solving a problem the difficulty of which has inhibited all modern editors of the Silvae: the apparent impossibility of establishing a satisfactory relation between the Madrid manuscript and the readings noted by Politian in his copy of the first edition now in the Corsinian library in Rome. It is the task of the editor to draw up a stemma that would reconcile the evidence of our text with the (...) testimony of the great humanist. (shrink)

It is the purpose of these notes to make a contribution towards solving a problem the difficulty of which has inhibited all modern editors of theSilvae: the apparent impossibility of establishing a satisfactory relation between the Madrid manuscript and the readings noted by Politian in his copy of the first edition now in the Corsinian library in Rome. It is the task of the editor to draw up a stemma that would reconcile the evidence of our text with the testimony (...) of the great humanist. (shrink)