Six palimpsest folios – or, to be accurate, three bifolios – of the Verona manuscript, Biblioteca Capitolare XL, contain fragments of a Latin translation of Euclid's Elements: fols. 331v–r and 326v–r, 341r–v and 338r–v, 336r–v and 343r–v. The folios are dated to around a.d. 500, and the text is written in capital script in two columns. Unfortunately the folios have suffered severe damage from various chemical substances, which were used by nineteenth-century scholars in attempts to retrieve the underlying text. Nevertheless, (...) an edition of the fragments finally appeared in 1964 by M. Geymonat. (shrink)

In his paper ‘The wrong text of Euclid: on Heiberg's text and its alternatives', published in 1996, W.R. Knorr resuscitated the debate which had taken place in the 1880s between the orientalist M. Klamroth and the editor of Euclid's Elements, J.L. Heiberg. In nuce the debate concerned the fundamental question of which manuscript tradition of the Elements should be assigned textual anteriority: the Greek tradition or the Arabic tradition. Whereas Klamroth argued for the latter position, Heiberg, whose view became the (...) prevailing one, endorsed the anteriority of the Greek tradition. (shrink)

According to major Latin dictionaries, the word radius is attested as a terminus technicus for the geometrical concept ‘radius’ in Cicero’s Timaeus 17. In this study, however, it is argued that there is good reason to believe that Cicero did not use the word in this sense, but in a metaphorical expression in which radius mainly carries the well-attested sense of ‘rod ’: paribus radiis attingi literally = ‘to be touched by equal rods’, that is to say, ‘to be equidistant’. (...) The first and only convincing attestation of radius in the sense of ‘radius ’ in ancient Latin literature is found in Calcidius’ Commentary on the Timaeus 59. It is suggested that Calcidius was influenced by Cicero’s translation and consequently adopted the word radius; however, its technical sense of ‘radius’ was coined, deliberately or not, by Calcidius himself. As there are no other convincing attestations of this sense of the word in ancient Latin, not even in geometrical texts, it is suggested that the word radius never became a commonly accepted terminus technicus for radius in antiquity. (shrink)