DOCSLIB.ORG

By Laura E. Winters Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date: Approved

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
By Laura E. Winters Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date: Approved SCHOOLS OF GREEK MATHEMATICAL PRACTICE by Laura E. Winters Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Joshua Sosin, Advisor ___________________________ Micaela Janan ___________________________ José González ___________________________ Kent Rigsby Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classical Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 ABSTRACT SCHOOLS OF GREEK MATHEMATICAL PRACTICE by Laura E. Winters Department of Classical Studies Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Joshua Sosin, Advisor ___________________________ Micaela Janan ___________________________ José González ___________________________ Kent Rigsby An abstract of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Classical Studies in the Graduate School of Duke University 2020 Copyright by Laura E. Winters 2020 ABSTRACT This dissertation revolves around a central observation that, although the methodological differences among Greek mathematical writings are striking, these differences do not lie primarily along lines of subject matter or time period. Almost all mathematical works fall clearly into one of two distinct sets of methodological conventions, which are observable from the classical period through late antiquity, in all disciplines. Because these sets of conventions transcend time and subject, and instead seem to be followed consistently by certain authors who interact among themselves in the manner of philosophical traditions, I have interpreted them as schools of mathematical practice. I have named the schools “systematist” and “heurist” according to the characteristic epistemological orientation of each. The systematist school, of which Euclid is the paradigmatic author, is motivated by the goal of a generalized and systematic treatment of mathematical information. Features of this method include strict conventions of presentation, the idealization of mathematical objects, a preference for universalizing propositions over unique problems, and a general reluctance to work with specific numbers, physical tools, or measurements. The heurist school, in which Archimedes, Heron of Alexandria, and Ptolemy worked, is oriented toward the discovery and development of effective methods of problem-solving. Presentation is less structured and usually more personalized, specific solutions are allowed to stand implicitly for universal principles, and physical phenomena, measurement, tools, and numerical calculations are more commonly included and addressed. iv Over the course of this work I will demonstrate the existence of these two schools with a thorough survey of Greek works of theoretical mathematics; I will outline the schools’ characteristic features and histories, and show how the influences of philosophical movements and intellectual social networks affected their practices. Each of the four chapters addresses the ways in which the methods of each school were expressed in the four most common mathematical disciplines: geometry, arithmetic, astronomy, and music. The chapters will show not only the evidence for the divisions between the schools in each field, and how they developed, but also that both schools made only minor adaptations to their methodologies according to subject matter. In fact, it can be shown that even when they departed from more traditional mathematical disciplines into areas of research such as mechanics and catoptrics (i.e. fields of science and technology that use mathematical tools but are not essentially governed by mathematical principles), the epistemological and methodological differences between the systematist and heurist schools were retained. The conclusion will show, first, that the systematist/heurist divide was fundamental and pervasive throughout the history of Greek works on mathematics and related disciplines, but that the divide was largely obscured by the activities of late antique scholars. Second, the conclusion will provide a brief sketch of how the combination of late antique transmission and modern reception of Greek mathematics have affected not only the perception of ancient mathematics (giving undue emphasis to systematist texts, despite evidence that the heurists were the larger school), but also the development of modern mathematical methods. v CONTENTS Abstract .............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... X Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................ xi Introduction: Revising the History of Greek Mathematics ................................................. 1 I. Geometry ....................................................................................................................... 10 I.1 The Systematist School ......................................................................................... 12 I.1.1 Euclid ................................................................................................................ 12 I.1.2 Example of a Systematist Proposition .............................................................. 28 I.1.3 Euclid’s Predecessors ....................................................................................... 31 I.1.4 Other Systematists Before Euclid ..................................................................... 38 I.1.5 Systematists After Euclid: Apollonius of Perga ............................................... 40 I.1.6 Other Systematists After Euclid ....................................................................... 45 I.2 The Heurist School ................................................................................................ 50 I.2.1 Heron of Alexandria ......................................................................................... 54 I.2.2 Archimedes ....................................................................................................... 70 I.2.2.1 Archimedes’ Systematist (and almost-systematist) Works: Sphere and Cylinder, Conoids and Spheroids ......................................................................... 71 I.2.2.2 Archimedes’ Numerical Methods: Measurement of the Circle ................. 76 I.2.2.2 Archimedes’ Mechanical Curves: On Spirals ........................................... 78 I.2.2.4 Archimedes’ Innovation in Mechanical Methods: Method, Quadrature of the Parabola .......................................................................................................... 82 I.2.3 Other Heurist Geometers .................................................................................. 98 I.3 Additional Remarks ............................................................................................. 104 vi I.3.1 Early Days: It’s all Plato’s fault ..................................................................... 105 I.3.2 The Middle Years: Hellenistic and Agonistic ................................................ 111 I.3.3 The Later Years: It’s all Neoplatonism’s fault ............................................... 114 II. Arithmetic ................................................................................................................... 116 II.1 The Systematist School ...................................................................................... 118 II.1.1 Euclid ............................................................................................................ 121 II.1.2 Apollonius of Perga ....................................................................................... 122 II.1.3 Nicomachus of Gerasa .................................................................................. 128 II.1.4 Theon of Smyrna ........................................................................................... 132 II.1.5 Theologoumena Arithmetica ......................................................................... 134 II.2 The Heurist School ............................................................................................. 136 II.2.1 Archimedes .................................................................................................... 139 II.2.1.1 The Sand Reckoner ................................................................................. 139 II.2.1.2 The Cattle Problem ................................................................................ 141 II.2.2 Eratosthenes .................................................................................................. 144 II.2.3 Diophantus of Alexandria ............................................................................. 145 II.2.3.1 The Arithmetica ...................................................................................... 145 II.2.3.2 On Polygonal Numbers .......................................................................... 150 II.2.4 The Greek Anthology, Book XIV ................................................................. 154 II.3 Additional Remarks ............................................................................................ 157 III. Astronomy ................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Euclid's Elements - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Euclid's Elements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_Elements Euclid's Elements From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Euclid's Elements (Ancient Greek: Στοιχεῖα Stoicheia) is a mathematical and geometric treatise Elements consisting of 13 books written by the ancient Greek mathematician Euclid in Alexandria c. 300 BC. It is a collection of definitions, postulates (axioms), propositions (theorems and constructions), and mathematical proofs of the propositions. The thirteen books cover Euclidean geometry and the ancient Greek version of elementary number theory. The work also includes an algebraic system that has become known as geometric algebra, which is powerful enough to solve many algebraic problems,[1] including the problem of finding the square root of a number.[2] With the exception of Autolycus' On the Moving Sphere, the Elements is one of the oldest extant Greek mathematical treatises,[3] and it is the oldest extant axiomatic deductive treatment of mathematics. It has proven instrumental in the development of logic and modern science. The name 'Elements' comes from the plural of 'element'. The frontispiece of Sir Henry Billingsley's first According to Proclus the term was used to describe a English version of Euclid's Elements, 1570 theorem that is all-pervading and helps furnishing proofs of many other theorems. The word 'element' is Author Euclid, and translators in the Greek language the same as 'letter'. This Language Ancient Greek, translations suggests that theorems in the Elements should be seen Subject Euclidean geometry, elementary as standing in the same relation to geometry as letters number theory to language.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematicians
    MATHEMATICIANS [MATHEMATICIANS] Authors: Oliver Knill: 2000 Literature: Started from a list of names with birthdates grabbed from mactutor in 2000. Abbe [Abbe] Abbe Ernst (1840-1909) Abel [Abel] Abel Niels Henrik (1802-1829) Norwegian mathematician. Significant contributions to algebra and anal- ysis, in particular the study of groups and series. Famous for proving the insolubility of the quintic equation at the age of 19. AbrahamMax [AbrahamMax] Abraham Max (1875-1922) Ackermann [Ackermann] Ackermann Wilhelm (1896-1962) AdamsFrank [AdamsFrank] Adams J Frank (1930-1989) Adams [Adams] Adams John Couch (1819-1892) Adelard [Adelard] Adelard of Bath (1075-1160) Adler [Adler] Adler August (1863-1923) Adrain [Adrain] Adrain Robert (1775-1843) Aepinus [Aepinus] Aepinus Franz (1724-1802) Agnesi [Agnesi] Agnesi Maria (1718-1799) Ahlfors [Ahlfors] Ahlfors Lars (1907-1996) Finnish mathematician working in complex analysis, was also professor at Harvard from 1946, retiring in 1977. Ahlfors won both the Fields medal in 1936 and the Wolf prize in 1981. Ahmes [Ahmes] Ahmes (1680BC-1620BC) Aida [Aida] Aida Yasuaki (1747-1817) Aiken [Aiken] Aiken Howard (1900-1973) Airy [Airy] Airy George (1801-1892) Aitken [Aitken] Aitken Alec (1895-1967) Ajima [Ajima] Ajima Naonobu (1732-1798) Akhiezer [Akhiezer] Akhiezer Naum Ilich (1901-1980) Albanese [Albanese] Albanese Giacomo (1890-1948) Albert [Albert] Albert of Saxony (1316-1390) AlbertAbraham [AlbertAbraham] Albert A Adrian (1905-1972) Alberti [Alberti] Alberti Leone (1404-1472) Albertus [Albertus] Albertus Magnus
    [Show full text]
  • Plato As "Architectof Science"
    Plato as "Architectof Science" LEONID ZHMUD ABSTRACT The figureof the cordialhost of the Academy,who invitedthe mostgifted math- ematiciansand cultivatedpure research, whose keen intellectwas able if not to solve the particularproblem then at least to show the methodfor its solution: this figureis quite familiarto studentsof Greekscience. But was the Academy as such a centerof scientificresearch, and did Plato really set for mathemati- cians and astronomersthe problemsthey shouldstudy and methodsthey should use? Oursources tell aboutPlato's friendship or at leastacquaintance with many brilliantmathematicians of his day (Theodorus,Archytas, Theaetetus), but they were neverhis pupils,rather vice versa- he learnedmuch from them and actively used this knowledgein developinghis philosophy.There is no reliableevidence that Eudoxus,Menaechmus, Dinostratus, Theudius, and others, whom many scholarsunite into the groupof so-called"Academic mathematicians," ever were his pupilsor close associates.Our analysis of therelevant passages (Eratosthenes' Platonicus, Sosigenes ap. Simplicius, Proclus' Catalogue of geometers, and Philodemus'History of the Academy,etc.) shows thatthe very tendencyof por- trayingPlato as the architectof sciencegoes back to the earlyAcademy and is bornout of interpretationsof his dialogues. I Plato's relationship to the exact sciences used to be one of the traditional problems in the history of ancient Greek science and philosophy.' From the nineteenth century on it was examined in various aspects, the most significant of which were the historical, philosophical and methodological. In the last century and at the beginning of this century attention was paid peredominantly, although not exclusively, to the first of these aspects, especially to the questions how great Plato's contribution to specific math- ematical research really was, and how reliable our sources are in ascrib- ing to him particular scientific discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematical Discourse in Philosophical Authors: Examples from Theon of Smyrna and Cleomedes on Mathematical Astronomy
    Mathematical discourse in philosophical authors: Examples from Theon of Smyrna and Cleomedes on mathematical astronomy Nathan Sidoli Introduction Ancient philosophers and other intellectuals often mention the work of mathematicians, al- though the latter rarely return the favor.1 The most obvious reason for this stems from the im- personal nature of mathematical discourse, which tends to eschew any discussion of personal, or lived, experience. There seems to be more at stake than this, however, because when math- ematicians do mention names they almost always belong to the small group of people who are known to us as mathematicians, or who are known to us through their mathematical works.2 In order to be accepted as a member of the group of mathematicians, one must not only have mastered various technical concepts and methods, but must also have learned how to express oneself in a stylized form of Greek prose that has often struck the uninitiated as peculiar.3 Be- cause of the specialized nature of this type of intellectual activity, in order to gain real mastery it was probably necessary to have studied it from youth, or to have had the time to apply oneself uninterruptedly.4 Hence, the private nature of ancient education meant that there were many educated individuals who had not mastered, or perhaps even been much exposed to, aspects of ancient mathematical thought and practice that we would regard as rather elementary (Cribiore 2001; Sidoli 2015). Starting from at least the late Hellenistic period, and especially during the Imperial and Late- Ancient periods, some authors sought to address this situation in a variety of different ways— such as discussing technical topics in more elementary modes, rewriting mathematical argu- ments so as to be intelligible to a broader audience, or incorporating mathematical material di- rectly into philosophical curricula.
    [Show full text]
  • 15 Famous Greek Mathematicians and Their Contributions 1. Euclid
    15 Famous Greek Mathematicians and Their Contributions 1. Euclid He was also known as Euclid of Alexandria and referred as the father of geometry deduced the Euclidean geometry. The name has it all, which in Greek means “renowned, glorious”. He worked his entire life in the field of mathematics and made revolutionary contributions to geometry. 2. Pythagoras The famous ‘Pythagoras theorem’, yes the same one we have struggled through in our childhood during our challenging math classes. This genius achieved in his contributions in mathematics and become the father of the theorem of Pythagoras. Born is Samos, Greece and fled off to Egypt and maybe India. This great mathematician is most prominently known for, what else but, for his Pythagoras theorem. 3. Archimedes Archimedes is yet another great talent from the land of the Greek. He thrived for gaining knowledge in mathematical education and made various contributions. He is best known for antiquity and the invention of compound pulleys and screw pump. 4. Thales of Miletus He was the first individual to whom a mathematical discovery was attributed. He’s best known for his work in calculating the heights of pyramids and the distance of the ships from the shore using geometry. 5. Aristotle Aristotle had a diverse knowledge over various areas including mathematics, geology, physics, metaphysics, biology, medicine and psychology. He was a pupil of Plato therefore it’s not a surprise that he had a vast knowledge and made contributions towards Platonism. Tutored Alexander the Great and established a library which aided in the production of hundreds of books.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Eratosthenes' Discovery in the Classroom: Educational
    Implementing Eratosthenes’ Discovery in the Classroom: Educational Difficulties Needing Attention Nicolas Decamp, C. de Hosson To cite this version: Nicolas Decamp, C. de Hosson. Implementing Eratosthenes’ Discovery in the Classroom: Educational Difficulties Needing Attention. Science and Education, Springer Verlag, 2012, 21 (6), pp.911-920. 10.1007/s11191-010-9286-3. hal-01663445 HAL Id: hal-01663445 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01663445 Submitted on 18 Dec 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Sci & Educ DOI 10.1007/s11191-010-9286-3 Implementing Eratosthenes’ Discovery in the Classroom: Educational Difficulties Needing Attention Nicolas De´camp • Ce´cile de Hosson Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract This paper presents a critical analysis of the accepted educational use of the method performed by Eratosthenes to measure the circumference of Earth which is often considered as a relevant means of dealing with issues related to the nature of science and its history. This method relies on a number of assumptions among which the parallelism of sun rays. The assumption of sun rays parallelism (if it is accurate) does not appear spontaneous for students who consider sun rays to be divergent.
    [Show full text]
  • Citations in Classics and Ancient History
    Citations in Classics and Ancient History The most common style in use in the field of Classical Studies is the author-date style, also known as Chicago 2, but MLA is also quite common and perfectly acceptable. Quick guides for each of MLA and Chicago 2 are readily available as PDF downloads. The Chicago Manual of Style Online offers a guide on their web-page: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide.html The Modern Language Association (MLA) does not, but many educational institutions post an MLA guide for free access. While a specific citation style should be followed carefully, none take into account the specific practices of Classical Studies. They are all (Chicago, MLA and others) perfectly suitable for citing most resources, but should not be followed for citing ancient Greek and Latin primary source material, including primary sources in translation. Citing Primary Sources: Every ancient text has its own unique system for locating content by numbers. For example, Homer's Iliad is divided into 24 Books (what we might now call chapters) and the lines of each Book are numbered from line 1. Herodotus' Histories is divided into nine Books and each of these Books is divided into Chapters and each chapter into line numbers. The purpose of such a system is that the Iliad, or any primary source, can be cited in any language and from any publication and always refer to the same passage. That is why we do not cite Herodotus page 66. Page 66 in what publication, in what edition? Very early in your textbook, Apodexis Historia, a passage from Herodotus is reproduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Pentagons in Medieval Architecture
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of the Academy's Library Építés – Építészettudomány 46 (3–4) 291–318 DOI: 10.1556/096.2018.008 PENTAGONS IN MEDIEVAL ARCHITECTURE KRISZTINA FEHÉR* – BALÁZS HALMOS** – BRIGITTA SZILÁGYI*** *PhD student. Department of History of Architecture and Monument Preservation, BUTE K II. 82, Műegyetem rkp. 3, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] **PhD, assistant professor. Department of History of Architecture and Monument Preservation, BUTE K II. 82, Műegyetem rkp. 3, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] ***PhD, associate professor. Department of Geometry, BUTE H. II. 22, Egry József u. 1, H-1111 Budapest, Hungary. E-mail: [email protected] Among regular polygons, the pentagon is considered to be barely used in medieval architectural compositions, due to its odd spatial appearance and difficult method of construction. The pentagon, representing the number five has a rich semantic role in Christian symbolism. Even though the proper way of construction was already invented in the Antiquity, there is no evidence of medieval architects having been aware of this knowledge. Contemporary sources only show approximative construction methods. In the Middle Ages the form has been used in architectural elements such as window traceries, towers and apses. As opposed to the general opinion supposing that this polygon has rarely been used, numerous examples bear record that its application can be considered as rather common. Our paper at- tempts to give an overview of the different methods architects could have used for regular pentagon construction during the Middle Ages, and the ways of applying the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Phantom Paths from Problems to Equations
    Archimedes and the Angel: Phantom Paths from Problems to Equations Fabio Acerbi CNRS, UMR 8163 ‘Savoirs, textes, langage’, Lille [email protected] Introduction This paper is a critical review of Reviel Netz’ The Transformation of Mathematics in the Early Mediterranean World.1 Its aim is to show that Netz’ methods of inquiry are too often unsatisfactory and to argue briefly for a substantially different interpretation of the evi- dence which he adduces. These two aims are pursued in parallel throughout the review and can hardly be disjoined. The review is uncommonly long and uncommonly direct, at times perhaps even a trifle vehement, in criticizing the methods and conclusions displayed in the book. There are two reasons for this. First, the transforma- tion of Academic scholarship into a branch of the editorial business and, very recently, into an expanding division of the media-driven star-system, has dramatically reduced the time left to study primary sources, to get properly informed of works by other scholars,2 and even just to read more than once what was written as a first draft. Second, at the same time, it is increasingly difficult to find serious reviews. Though the number of reviews and book-notices is explod- ing, it is clear that most reviews are written just to get a copy of an otherwise too expensive book. At any rate, the current policy is to keep sharp criticisms, if any, hidden under a seemingly gentle stylistic surface. The present paper is organized as follows. In the first section, I present Archimedes’ problem; in the next, I report the contents 1 R.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48147-2 — Scale, Space and Canon in Ancient Literary Culture Reviel Netz Index More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-48147-2 — Scale, Space and Canon in Ancient Literary Culture Reviel Netz Index More Information Index Aaker, Jennifer, 110, 111 competition, 173 Abdera, 242, 310, 314, 315, 317 longevity, 179 Abel, N. H., 185 Oresteia, 197, 200, 201 Academos, 189, 323, 324, 325, 337 papyri, 15 Academy, 322, 325, 326, 329, 337, 343, 385, 391, Persians, 183 399, 404, 427, 434, 448, 476, 477–8, 512 portraits, 64 Achilles Tatius, 53, 116, 137, 551 Ptolemaic era, 39 papyri, 16, 23 Aeschylus (astronomer), 249 Acta Alexandrinorum, 87, 604 Aesop, 52, 68, 100, 116, 165 adespota, 55, 79, 81–5, 86, 88, 91, 99, 125, 192, 194, in education, 42 196, 206, 411, 413, 542, 574 papyri, 16, 23 Adkin, Neil, 782 Aethiopia, 354 Adrastus, 483 Aetia, 277 Adrastus (mathematician), 249 Africa, 266 Adrianople, 798 Agatharchides, 471 Aedesius (martyr), 734, 736 Agathocles (historian), 243 Aegae, 479, 520 Agathocles (peripatetic), 483 Aegean, 338–43 Agathon, 280 Aegina, 265 Agias (historian), 373 Aelianus (Platonist), 484 agrimensores, 675 Aelius Aristides, 133, 657, 709 Ai Khanoum, 411 papyri, 16 Akhmatova, Anna, 186 Aelius Herodian (grammarian), 713 Albertus Magnus, 407 Aelius Promotus, 583 Albinus, 484 Aenesidemus, 478–9, 519, 520 Alcaeus, 49, 59, 61–2, 70, 116, 150, 162, 214, 246, Aeolia, 479 see also Aeolian Aeolian, 246 papyri, 15, 23 Aeschines, 39, 59, 60, 64, 93, 94, 123, 161, 166, 174, portraits, 65, 67 184, 211, 213, 216, 230, 232, 331 Alcidamas, 549 commentaries, 75 papyri, 16 Ctesiphon, 21 Alcinous, 484 False Legation, 22 Alcmaeon, 310
    [Show full text]
  • Class 1: Overview of the Course; Ptolemaic Astronomy
    a. But marked variations within this pattern, and hence different loops from one occasion to another: e.g. 760 days one time, 775 another, etc. b. Planetary speeds vary too: e.g. roughly 40 percent variation in apparent longitudinal motion per day of Mars from one extreme to another while away from retrograde 4. Each of the five planets has its own distinct basic pattern of periods of retrograde motion, and its own distinct pattern of variations on this basic pattern a. Can be seen in examples of Mars and Jupiter, where loops vary b. An anomaly on top of the anomaly of retrograde motion c. Well before 300 B.C. the Babylonians had discovered “great cycles” in which the patterns of retrograde loops and timings of stationary points repeat: e.g. 71 years for Jupiter (see Appendix for others) 5. The problem of the planets: give an account ('logos') of retrograde motion, including basic pattern, size of loops, and variations for each of the five planets a. Not to predict longitude and latitude every day b. Focus instead on salient events – i.e. phenomena: conjunctions, oppositions, stationary points, longitudinal distance between them c. For the Babylonians, just predict; for the Greeks, to give a geometric representation of the constituent motions giving rise to the patterns 6. Classical designations: "the first inequality": variation in mean daily angular speed, as in 40 percent variation for Mars and smaller variation for Sun; "the second inequality": retrograde motion, as exhibited by the planets, but not the sun and moon D. Classical Greek Solutions 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Ancient Rhetoric and Greek Mathematics: a Response to a Modern Historiographical Dilemma
    Science in Context 16(3), 391–412 (2003). Copyright © Cambridge University Press DOI: 10.1017/S0269889703000863 Printed in the United Kingdom Ancient Rhetoric and Greek Mathematics: A Response to a Modern Historiographical Dilemma Alain Bernard Dibner Institute, Boston To the memory of three days in the Negev Argument In this article, I compare Sabetai Unguru’s and Wilbur Knorr’s views on the historiography of ancient Greek mathematics. Although they share the same concern for avoiding anach- ronisms, they take very different stands on the role mathematical readings should have in the interpretation of ancient mathematics. While Unguru refuses any intrusion of mathematical practice into history, Knorr believes this practice to be a key tool for understanding the ancient tradition of geometry. Thus modern historians have to find their way between these opposing views while avoiding an unsatisfactory compromise. One approach to this, I propose, is to take ancient rhetoric into account. I illustrate this proposal by showing how rhetorical categories can help us to analyze mathematical texts. I finally show that such an approach accommodates Knorr’s concern about ancient mathematical practice as well as the standards for modern historical research set by Unguru 25 years ago. Introduction The title of the present paper indicates that this work concerns the relationship between ancient rhetoric and ancient Greek mathematics. Such a title obviously raises a simple question: Is there such a relationship? The usual appreciation of ancient science and philosophy is at odds with such an idea. This appreciation is rooted in the pregnant categorization that ranks rhetoric and science at very different levels.
    [Show full text]