Greek mathematics is usually seen as having reached its height in a “golden age” around 300 b.c., after which it declined, reaching a rather sad stage in late antiquity. In this latter period Pappus of Alexandria stands out as one of the last competent mathematicians, although even his Mathematical Collection has been valued by historians mainly for its wealth of information on earlier mathematical achievements. In her readable book, Serafina Cuomo sets out to correct the conventional view of mathematics in (...) late antiquity: her general goal is “to show that the mathematics of late antiquity deserves a place both in the history of science and in the history of antiquity” . To that end she focuses on Pappus's Collection, for which she attempts “to produce a historical analysis … and at the same time to explore its wider cultural contexts” . Thus her text is not intended primarily as a discussion of the mathematics contained in the Collection; instead Cuomo looks into the historical circumstances in which Pappus produced this work and the image he wanted to convey both of mathematics and of himself.The first chapter presents some general background on the public's perception of mathematics and its practitioners in late antiquity. Emphasizing evidence “apart from what we find in the books of the famous mathematicians” , Cuomo looks at astrological treatises such as the Mathesis by Julius Firmicus Maternus and considers the social and fiscal status of various “technical” professions, such as those of land surveyor, architect, and public administrator. She uses Diocletian's edict on wages and salaries and examines the role of mathematics in education to show that, “far from being invisible or confined to ivory towers” , mathematics was perceived as an integral part of life and regarded positively. All this material is very interesting, but how relevant is it? Cuomo's broadening of the perspective to include more than just the works of famous mathematicians is certainly commendable. But should one equate the mere skill of calculating with numbers, or even that of applying some “higher” mathematics, with theoretical, philosophical, mathematical thought? Of course, Cuomo is aware of this problem. Taking it to be irrelevant for her purpose, she makes a good point: claiming affiliation with mathematics to enhance one's status, as those professional practitioners would do, presupposes a positive image of mathematics among the public . Nevertheless, such evidence would probably not have swayed previous historians' opinion of the decline of mathematics in late antiquity.Chapters 2–4 are devoted to Book 5 of the Collection, which covers isoperimetric problems and Platonic solids; Book 8, on mechanics; Book 3, on cube duplication; and Book 4, on special curves and their classification. In Chapter 2 Cuomo argues that Pappus used the widely known problems discussed in Book 5 to address a general audience so as to promote mathematics and show that “mathematicians are better qualified than philosophers … to talk about isoperimetry and the five Platonic bodies” . At the same time, pointing out the complementarity of mathematics and mechanics , Pappus stresses the usefulness of mathematics in educational and material matters. In Chapter 4 Cuomo examines how Pappus, addressing experts, “marks out his territory within the mathematical field itself” .In the final chapter Cuomo tries “to get a clearer grasp of Pappus' mathematical agenda” . She concludes that Pappus is not just a compiler admiring the past; rather, he selected his subjects and manipulated the mathematical tradition to serve his own immediate goals in the present.This book contains an abundance of interesting historical material, although, regrettably, the mathematical examples are only roughly sketched. Cuomo shows that we can learn much from looking at Pappus's Collection in its own right. Her book deserves careful study. (shrink)

In his book on The Mathematics of Great Amateurs Coolidge starts the chapter on Bolzano saying that he included Bolzano because it seemed interesting to him ‘that a man who was a remarkable pulpit orator, only removed from his chair for his political opinions, should have thought so far into the deepest problems of a science which he never taught in a professional capacity’ [Coolidge, 1990, p. 195]. In fact, considering Bolzano's poor health and his enormous productivity in his ‘professional (...) areas’, the results, the breadth and the extent of this ‘great amateur's’ thoughts on mathematics, and its proper scientific presentation are simply astonishing. Even this new selection of more than 650 printed pages of text, well edited and translated by Steve Russ, represents only a part of Bolzano's legacy on mathematical topics: the complete German edition of Bolzano's writings, the Bernard Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe edited by J. Berg, E. Morscher, B. van Rootselaar, and others is projected to include over 120 volumes of which more than 36 volumes will contain his mathematical works. About 25 volumes have been published so far in this mathematical subseries including Bolzano's extensive Miscellanea Mathematica .To most readers of this journal, Bolzano will be well-known for his contributions to logic—his ‘logic of variation’ is viewed as a precursor of the modern semantic conception of logical consequence—and his contributions to the foundations of calculus, especially his ‘purely analytic proof’ of the intermediate-value theorem and the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, or his early discovery of a counterintuitive function which is continuous in its domain, but nowhere-differentiable.Despite his lifelong interest in the foundations of mathematics, Bolzano studied theology and taught philosophy of religion in his native city, Prague, from 1805 until his dismissal in 1820. Part of Bolzano's duties …. (shrink)