List of Web Sites

This is a list of unsorted links to various Euclid-related pages and some further commentary. I've singled out the first four links which I consider to be four of the most important extant manuscripts.

These are the 888 AD Theon manuscript, the Pre-Theon Vatican 190 manuscript, and the Greek to Latin translation from Sicily (translation made in the 12th, but this copy is 13/14th century)

I've also added some links and discussion on Adelard I manuscript as well as one link to an early Arabic manuscript.

As far as I can tell, there is, surprisingly, no complete early Adelard I manuscript available online in the UK. Balliol College MS 257 is digitized but not very well, with a number of pages cropped. The only fully digitized copies are in Belgium and the Vatican and possibly elsewhere that I haven't checked. Given that Adelard is one of the most famous early British scholars, it is quite surprising that no online copy is available in the UK. The British Library may have something, such as the MS Burney 275, but I've found the British Library website to be very unreliable to access. Burney MS 275 is also a somewhat mixed-up manuscript. It contains parts of Adelard I, II, III, with only fragments of each. For example, it only contains 6 folios of Adelard I (302-308)

NOTE:

The British Library suffered a major cyberattack in 2023, which made its online manuscript service unavailable. As of May 2024, this valuable service is still unavailable. Certain links given below will, therefore, not work.

As of July 2025, some works are reappearing. The only Euclid manuscript that is currently available at the British Library is the Burney MS 275, (folios 293r-335r). The library gives virtually no information on this manuscript, even claiming it to be 16th century, which can't be right. It's an early 14th century manuscript. As noted above, the MS contains a mix of Adelard I, II, and III versions of the Elements. According to Menso Folkerts (Euclid's Elements in the Middle Ages) the contents are: Adelard I: f.302-308, s.XIV (VII 3 - VIII 25); Adelard II: f.293-302, ca. A.D.1300 (I - VII 2); Adelard III: f.308-335, s.XIV (IX - XV 3). The full contents of the manuscript is given at the bottom of this page, which I obtained from Busard and Folkerts' book: Robert of Chester's (?) Redaction of Euclid's Elements, the so-called Adelard 11 Version.

You'll find Pythagoras' theorem on f.294v. The date for the manuscript is apparently 1309–1316. AD. I have an image of the first page (293r) at the bottom of this web page that shows neat Gothic script handwriting, with some very ornate lettering as well as completely off topic small figures, such as a hunter chasing a presumably wild pig with his hound at the top of the page and two knights (with tails?) fighting each other at the bottom of the page. The ornate first letter is of interest because it shows a woman (possibly the muse of geometry) teaching stonemasons various stone-cut ornamentations from the table in front of her.

Important Early Manuscripts

Bodleian D'Orville 888 AD Copy of Euclid (Greek)

The Vatican 190 PEYRARD Manuscript (Greek)

The 7373 Greek to Latin Edition by Sicilian Annonymous Translator (Latin)

Arabic Manuscripts

I couldn't find any early online Arabic editions of Euclid except for this one which is a little later by al-Tusi. I wasn't able to determine what is was based on.

Euclid.; Ṭūsī, Naṣīr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad, 1201-1274 translator; This copy dated 1594

Adelard I Manuscripts - Translation from Arabic to Latin

Adelard wrote his edition from Arabic to Latin between 1126 and 1130. (according to Busard, 1983). Other than the anonymous translation from Sicily, Adelard wrote the first translation that reached western Europe. in the 12th century. Its possible there were Latin editions of Boethius' edition floating around but this is not know for certain. The fact that Adelard wrote almost a complete edition indicates that the Boethius Latin text was no widely available or was incomplete.

Fully Digitized:

Burney 275 (folios 293r-335r) is a mix of Adelard I, II and III. Menso Folkerts (Euclid's Elements in the Middle Ages) claims that f.302-308, is Adelard I:

For those looking for a more substantial Adelard I, you'll find it at Bruges. Bibliothèque publique, Ms. 529. This even has some Arabic text in note form (eg f9v). This is a 13th century copy. so probably not written in Adelard's hand.

Adelard II Manuscripts

There are a lot a of Adelard II editions presumably because this edition only contains the enunciations and not the proofs, making it easier to copy.

Here is an example of a Aledard II from Dresden Sammelhandschrift - Mscr.Dresd.Db .86. This manuscript has unfortamtely some water damage by the looks of it.

If you look at the first 10 pages of the Burney 275 you'll notice how short the prepositions are, only a few lines each, this is become it contains no proofs. As aside, the Burney manuscript is beautifully set out.

Balliol College MS 257, 12th century, appears to be fully digitized. Mentioned by Heath, 1925 as Ball. Coll. 257I, Chap 8. The digitized copy is, however, not well photographed, with a number of pages heavily cropped. Surprisingly the photographs are stored on flickr.

Vatican Reg Lat. 1137, fully digitized (listed by Folkerts) - it looks like only a very small part of this is Adelard I. Folkerts suggests f.73-74 to include X 24, X 27

Bruges MS 529 designated B by Busard, fully digitized (listed by Folkerts). The writing is neat enough that it is possible to read the text in this manuscript with enough patience. It appears that many of the figures at least for Book I were not included in this manuscript. They disappear around proposition 6 and reappear in proposition 44.

Bodleian Oxford, MS. Arch. Selden. B. 13, 13th century, late, 111 folios are available online at

Harley MS 5404 - Currently not available due to a cyber attack. As mentioned by Heath 1926 as Herleian No. 5404, Chap 8

Partially Digitized

Glasgow, Latin, Sp Coll MS Gen. 1115, dated 4 December 1480

MS. Arch. Selden. B. 13

Not Digitized

Oxford, Trinity College MS. 47, Latin, this is the designed 'O' manuscript by Busard and perhaps the oldest (Folkerts). Probably 13th/14 century.

Further information on MS 47 can be found here, but the information doesn't look correct as it suggests this copy is "now tentatively attributed to Robert of Ketton". Robert of Ketton is also more commonly called Robert of Chester who is considered to have written the Adelard II manuscripts not Adelard I manuscripts since most, if not all other literature states the Adelard I manuscripts are based on Adelard's own personal translation. It also claims there are only 5 manuscripts in existence but Menso Folkerts lists 7, although some of these are very incomplete. The Folkerts list doesn't include the Glasgow manuscript possibly because it's too late (1480)

D-OrvilleBodleian Library 70, located at Oxford (Latin, this is the designated 'D' manuscript by Busard), 14th century

Of this list, the Belgium manuscript (MS 529), is by far the most accessible.

Two things I came across that appear distinctive about the Adelard I books is in Book III on circles:

a) The first is that Proposition 12 is missing from copies of Adelard I. This is a small proposition that proves that when two circles touch, their centers pass through the point of contact.

b) The second difference is Adelard I merges proposition 35 and 36 which he numbers 34.

As a result of these differences, Adelard I has 35 propositions in Book II, while Heath's Euclid has 37. There has been a suggestion that Preposition 12 was inserted by Heron. This comes from a remark one can find in Gerard Cremona's translation of the commentary of Al-Nayrizi. Al-Nyrizi says in what we would call Proposition 12, but he calls "The Eleventh Figure of the Third Treatise" because he merges 11 and 12 together, that "Heron said: Lo, in this figure the mathematician fixed the two circles...". Maybe Adelard didn't add the proposition to his translation because he thought it didn't belong, and Al-Nyrizi didn't pull it out as a separate proposition. John Casey, in his 1885 edition of Euclid (p120), actually says that Prop XI and XII can be combined into one general proposition.

References:

1, Heath, 1926 EUCLI, D The Thirteen Books of The Elements. https://archive.org/details/EuclidsElementsBooksIIIVolume1Heath/Euclid%27s_Elements_Books_I-II_Volume_1-Heath/

2 Busard, The first Latin translation of Euclid's Elements commonly ascribed to Adelard of Bath, 1983, https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_first_Latin_translation_of_Euclid_s/o2QPsb-IjgwC?hl=en

Manuscripts used by Heiberg:

From Heiberg's book EUCLIDIS OPERA OMNIA, Volume 1, 1883 we have the following manuscripts listed on page VIII-IX:

P - Peyrard Gr. 190 copy (9th century)

B - Bodleian 888AD (9th century)

F - Floirentine Laurentian MS. XXVIII (Plut. 28.3, Greek, 10th century)
Note the library recently changed the URL, the above is current and works as of 4/28/2025

V - Viennese MS. Philos. Gr. No. 103; (Greek) This manuscript is known today by the name Phil. gr. 31

b - MS. numbered 18-19 in the Comunale Library at Bologna (The library changed their links! This is the updated link to 18) (Greek)

This is the link to 19: https://arbor.medialibrary.it/item/6763d1ee-44ab-4145-ba6b-bdfa9ca74b48

p - Paris Gr. 2466 (12th century)

Heath adds to this list:

q = Paris MS. 2344, folio; (12th century). This manuscript is only mentioned in Volume 5 of Heiberg, where Heiberg lists many other documents he looked at, primarily, it seems, to obtain the scholia.

The following is a translation (GPT 4.0) to English of Heiberg's description of these manuscripts in Volume 1 of this series:

P- Vatican codex Gr. 190 Peyrard from the 10th century, parchment. Here and there a much more recent hand has restored the faded letters with which I have indicated by the letter $\pi$, wherever it seemed that the ancient writing was not quite accurately reproduced. I myself collated books IV-IX at Rome in 1881, book II and part of the third by Menges; Augustus Mau kindly undertook to collate the first and the remaining part of the third.

B - Bodleian Codex D'Orville X, 1 inf. 2,30, written in 888, parchment. I myself collated books I-VII at Oxford in 1882.

F - Florence Codex Laurentian XXVIII, 3 from the 10th century, parchment. In this codex too, the ancient writing is often restored by a 16th-century hand, which also repaired many leaves or parts of leaves and supplied the entire final portion of the codex. This I have indicated by the letter $\varphi$, wherever the hand either corrupted the ancient writing or so obscured it that it could not be recognized. I myself collated the entire codex at Florence in 1881.

V - Vienna Codex Gr. 103 from the 11th–12th centuries, parchment. The final section on silk paper was supplied by a 13th-century hand. I myself collated the entire codex at Copenhagen in 1880.

b - Codex of the Municipal Library of Bologna, numbers 18-19, 11th century, parchment. I collated Book I and examined some other passages at Florence in 1881.

p - Paris Codex Gr. 2466 from the 12th century, parchment. I collated Book I at Paris in 1880, and Books II–VII at Copenhagen in 1882.

Notes from Heath on these Manuscripts

The following are more extensive notes from Heath on these manuscripts:

(1) P= Vatican MS. numbered 190, 4to, in two volumes (doubtless one originally); 10th c.

This is the MS. which Peyrard was able to use ; it was sent from Rome to Paris for his use and bears the stamp of the Paris Imperial Library on the last page. It is well and carefully written. There are corrections some of which are by the original hand, but generally in paler ink, others, still pretty old, by several different hands, or by one hand with different ink in different places (P m. 2), and others again by the latest hand ( P m. rec.). It contains, first, the Elements i.-XIII. with scholia, then Marinus' commentary on the Data (without the name of the author), followed by the Data itself and scholia, then the Elements xiv., xv. (so called), and lastly three books and a part of a fourth of a commentary by Theon eis τοὺς προχείρους κανόνας Πτολεμαίου.

(2) F=MS . XXVIII, 3, in the Laurentian Library at Florence, 4to; 10th c.

This MS. is written in a beautiful and scholarly hand and contains the Elements I.-xv., the Optics and the Phaenomena, but is not well preserved. Not only is the original writing renewed in many places, where it had become faint, by a later hand of the 16th c., but the same hand has filled certain smaller lacunae by gumming on to torn pages new pieces of parchment, and has replaced bodily certain portions of the MS., which had doubtless become illegible, by fresh leaves. The larger gaps so made good extend from Eucl. vii. 12 to IX. 15, and from XII. 3 to the end ; so that, besides the conclusion of the Elements, the Optics and Phaenomena are also in the later hand, and we cannot even tell what in addition to the Elements i.-xiii. the original ms. contained. Heiberg denotes the later hand by $\phi$ and observes that, while in restoring words which had become faint and filling up minor lacunae the writer used no other MS., yet in the two larger restorations he used the Laurentian MS. xxviii, 6, belonging to the 13th-14th c. The latter ms. (which Heiberg denotes by f) was copied from the Viennese ms. (V) to be described below.

(3) B= Bodleian MS., D'Orville X. I inf. 2, 30, 4to ; A.D. 888.

This ms. contains the Elements I.-xv. with many scholia. Leaves 15-118 contain I. I4 (from about the middle of the proposition) to the end of Book VI., and leaves 123-387 (wrongly numbered 397) Books VII.-xv. in one and the same elegant hand (9th c.). The leaves preceding leaf 15 seem to have been lost at some time, leaves 6 to 14 (containing Elem. i. to the place in I. 14 above referred to) being carelessly written by a later hand on thick and common parchment (13th c.). On leaves 2 to 4 and 122 are certain notes in the hand of Arethas, who also wrote a two-line epigram on leaf 5, the greater part of the scholia in uncial letters, a few notes and corrections, and two sentences on the last leaf, the first of which states that the MS. was written by one Stephen clericus in the year of the world 6397 (= 888 A.D.), while the second records Arethas' own acquisition of it. Arethas lived from, say, 865 to 939 A.D. He was Archbishop of Caesarea and wrote a commentary on the Apocalypse. The portions of his library which survive are of the greatest interest to palaeography on account of his exact notes of dates, names of copyists, prices of parchment etc. It is to him also that we owe the famous Plato MS. from Patmos (Cod. Clarkianus) which was written for him in November 895.

(4) V= Viennese MS. Philos. Gr. No. 103; probably 12th c.

This MS. contains 292 leaves, Eucl. Elements I.-XV. occupying leaves 1 to 254 , after which come the Optics (to leaf 271), the Phaenomena (mutilated at the end) from leaf 272 to leaf 282, and lastly scholia, on leaves 283 to 292, also imperfect at the end. The different material used for different parts and the varieties of handwriting make it necessary for Heiberg to discuss this MS. at some length ${ }^2$. The handwriting on leaves 1 to 183 (Book 1. to the middle of X. 105) and on leaves 203 to 234 (from XI. 31, towards the end of the proposition, to XIII. 7, a few lines down) is the same ; between leaves 184 and 202 there are two varieties of handwriting, that of leaves 184 to 189 and that of leaves 200 (verso) to 202 being the same. Leaf 235 begins in the same handwriting, changes first gradually into that of leaves 184 to 189 and then (verso) into a third more rapid cursive writing which is the same as that of the greater part of the scholia, and also as that of leaves 243 and 282, although, as these leaves are of different material, the look of the writing and of the ink seems altered. There are corrections both by the first and a second hand, and scholia by many hands. On the whole, in spite of the apparent diversity of handwriting in the MS., it is probable that the whole of it was written at about the same time, and it may (allowing for changes of material, ink etc.) even have been written by the same man. It is at least certain that, when the Laurentian Ms. xxviii, 6 was copied from it, the whole MS. was in the condition in which it is now, except as regards the later scholia and leaves 283 to 292 which are not in the Laurentian ms., that ms. coming to an end where the Phaenomena breaks off abruptly in V. Hence Heiberg attributes the whole MS. to the 12th c.

But it was apparently in two volumes originally, the first consisting of leaves I to 183; and it is certain that it was not all copied at the same time or from one and the same original. For leaves 184 to 202 were evidently copied from two MSS. different both from one another and from that from which the rest was copied. Leaves 184 to the middle of leaf 189 (recto) must have been copied from a ms. similar to P , as is proved by similarity of readings, though not from P itself. The rest, up to leaf 202, were copied from the Bologna ms. (b) to be mentioned below. It seems clear that the content of leaves 184 to 202 was supplied from other MSS. because there was a lacuna in the original from which the rest of V was copied.

Heiberg sums up his conclusions thus. The copyist of V first copied leaves i to 183 from an original in which two quaterniones were missing (covering from the middle of Eucl. X. 105 to near the end of XI. 3I). Noticing the lacuna he put aside one quaternio of the parchment used up to that point. Then he copied onwards from the end of the lacuna in the original to the end of the Phaenomena. After this he looked about him for another ms. from which to fill up the lacuna ; finding one, he copied from it as far as the middle of leaf 189 (recto). Then, noticing that the MS. from which he was copying was of a different class, he had recourse to yet another MS. from which he copied up to leaf 202. At the same time, finding that the lacuna was longer than he had reckoned for, he had to use twelve more leaves of a different parchment in addition to the quaternio which he had put aside. The whole MS. at first formed two volumes (the first containing leaves i to 183 and the second leaves 184 to 282) ; then, after the last leaf had perished, the two volumes were made into one to which two more quaterniones were also added. A few leaves of the latter of these two have since perished.

(5) b=MS. numbered 18-19 in the Communal Library at Bologna, in two volumes, 4to ; 11th c.

This ms. has scholia in the margin written both by the first hand and by two or three later hands ; some are written by the latest hand, Theodorus Cabasilas (a descendant apparently of Nicolaus Cabasilas, 14th c.) who owned the MS. at one time. It contains (a) in 14 quaterniones the definitions and the enunciations (without proofs) of the Elements i.-XIII. and of the Data, (b) in the remainder of the volumes the Proem to Geometry (published among the Variae Collectiones in Hultsch's edition of Heron, pp. 252, 24 to 274, 14) followed by the Elements I.-xiii. (part of xiii. 18 to the end being missing), and then by part of the Data (from the last three words of the enunciation of Prop. 38 to the end of the penultimate clause in Prop. 87, ed. Menge). From xi. 36 inclusive to the end of xii. this MS. appears to represent an entirely different recension. Heiberg is compelled to give this portion of b separately in an appendix. He conjectures that it is due to a Byzantine mathematician who thought Euclid's proofs too long and tiresome and consequently contented himself with indicating the course followed. At the same time this Byzantine must have had an excellent MS. before him, probably of the ante-Theonine variety of which the Vatican MS. 190 (P) is the sole representative.

(6) p= Paris MS. 2466, 4to ; 12th $c$.

This manuscript is written in two hands, the finer hand occupying leaves i to 53 (recto), and a more careless hand leaves 53 (verso) to 64, which are of the same parchment as the earlier leaves, and leaves 65 to 239 , which are of a thinner and rougher parchment showing traces of writing of the 8th-9th c. (a Greek version of the Old Testament). The ms. contains the Elements I.-XIII. and some scholia after Books XI., XII. and XIII.

(7) q= Paris ms. 2344, folio; 12th c.

It is written by one hand but includes scholia by many hands. On leaves i to 16 (recto) are scholia with the same title as that found by Wachsmuth in a Vatican MS. and relied upon by him to prove that Proclus continued his commentaries beyond Book I. Leaves 17 to 357 contain the Elements 1.-xiii. (except that there is a lacuna from the middle of VIII. 25 to the ĕкθεσις of IX. 14) ; before Books VII. and X. there are some leaves filled with scholia only, and leaves 358 to 366 contain nothing but scholia.