Empiricus and others) indicates that Proclus had better sources than we have; and Heiberg gives other cases where Proclus omits words which are in all our MSS. and where Proclus' reading should perhaps be preferred. But, except in these instances (where Proclus may have drawn from some ancient source such as one of the older commentaries), Proclus' MS. does not seem to have been among the best. Often it agrees with our worst MSS., sometimes it agrees with F where F alone has a certain reading in the text, so that (e.g. in I. 15 Por.) the common reading of Proclus and F must be rejected, thrice only does it agree with P alone, sometimes it agrees with P and some Theonine MSS., and once it agrees with the Theonine MSS. against P and other sources.
Of the other external sources, those which are older than Theon generally agree with our best MSS., e.g. Heron, allowing for the difference in the plan of his definitions and the somewhat free adaptation to his purpose of the Euclidean definitions in Books X., XI.
Heiberg concludes that the Elements were most spoiled by interpolations about the 3rd c., for Sextus Empiricus had a correct text, while Iamblichus had an interpolated one; but doubtless the purer text continued for a long time in circulation, as we conclude from the fact that our MSS. are free from interpolations already found in Iamblichus' MS.
Euclid. Euclid's Elements. Sir Thomas Little Heath. New York. Dover. 1956.
The National Science Foundation provided support for entering this text.
Purchase a copy of this text (not necessarily the same edition) from Amazon.com
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.