Arch. Hist. Exact Sci. DOI 10.

1007/s00407-009-0043-4

Between Vite and Descartes: Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis
Paul Bockstaele

Received: 10 July 2008 Springer-Verlag 2009

Abstract Adriaan van Roomen published an outline of what he called a Mathesis Universalis in 1597. This earned him a well-deserved place in the history of early modern ideas about a universal mathematics which was intended to encompass both geometry and arithmetic and to provide general rules valid for operations involving numbers, geometrical magnitudes, and all other quantities amenable to measurement and calculation. Mathesis Universalis (MU) became the most common (though not the only) term for mathematical theories developed with that aim. At some time around 1600 van Roomen composed a new version of his MU, considerably different from the earlier one. This second version was never effectively published and it has not been discussed in detail in the secondary literature before. The text has, however, survived and the two versions are presented and compared in the present article. Sections 16 are about the rst version of van Roomens MU, the occasion of its publication (a controversy about Archimedes treatise on the circle, Sect. 2), its conceptual context (Sect. 3), its structure (with an overview of its definitions, axioms, and theorems) and its dependence on Clavius use of numbers in dealing with both rational and irrational ratios (Sect. 4), the geometrical interpretation of arithmetical operations multiplication and division (Sect. 5), and an analysis of its content in modern terms. In his second version of a MU van Roomen took algebra into account, inspired by Vites early treatises; he planned to publish it as part of a new edition of Al-Khwarizmis treatise on

Note by the communicator: For reasons of health Paul Bockstaele has asked me to receive and deal with all professional correspondence concerning this article. Please use in this connection my e-mail or postal addresses: Henk J. M. Bos, Department for Science Studies, Aarhus University C. F. Mllers All, B. 1110, 8000 Aarhus-C, Denmark. e-mail: h.j.m.bos@uu.nl Communicated by H. J. M. Bos. P. Bockstaele Graetboslaan 9, 3050 Oud-Heverlee, Belgium

123

P. Bockstaele

algebra (Sect. 7). Section 8 describes the conceptual background and the difculties involved in the merging of algebra and geometry; Sect. 9 summarizes and analyzes the definitions, axioms and theorems of the second version, noting the differences with the rst version and tracing the inuence of Vite. Section 10 deals with the inuence of van Roomen on later discussions of MU, and briey sketches Descartes ideas about MU as expressed in the latters Regulae. 1 Introduction In the rst part of the introduction to his Commentary on the rst book of Euclids Elements, the Neo-Platonist philosopher Proclus discusses the various opinions found in Platos dialogues, the books of Aristotle, and the Pythagorean writings regarding the mathematical sciences. In particular, he pays attention to the principles and theorems that are common to all mathematical disciplines, both pure and mixed. They constitute a science in its own right, encompassing the whole of mathematical knowledge. To this universal mathematics1 belong all the theorems which in a general way deal with ratios, proportionalities, divisions, inversions, permutations, or with equality and inequality of objects in form, number or movement. The Greek text of Proclus Commentary was rst published in Basel in 1533 by Simon Grinaeus (14931541) as an appendix to his edition of the Elements.2 In 1560, a Latin translation by the Venetian nobleman Francesco Barozzi (15371604) was published in Padua.3 In the course of the sixteenth century several discussions of the introduction of Proclus Commentary appeared, among others by Pierre de la Rame, or Petrus Ramus, (15151572) and Konrad Dasypodius (15321600). Probably inuenced by these discussions, the early modern notion of a science that underlies all mathematical knowledge took form, a scientia mathematica communis treating all principles and properties that are common to all quantities. This science can be found under different names, such as mathematica generalis, prima mathesis or Mathesis Universalis. The emergence and evolution of this idea is well treated by Giovanni Crapulli in his Mathesis Universalis. Genesi di unidea nel XVI secolo.4 He analyses the contributions of Alessandro Piccolomini (15081578), Barozzi, Ramus and Dasypodius. Separate chapters are devoted to gures like Benito Pereira (15351610), Adriaan van Roomen and Johann Heinrich Alsted (15881638). With the exception of van Roomen, who as a mathematician also developed an actual project for his Mathesis Universalis, these authors only presented some general speculations on the scientia mathematica universalis. Van Roomen rst formulated his ideas in his In Archimedis circuli dimensionem expositio et analysis5 published in 1597. We will refer to this formulation as the rst version of his Mathesis Universalis. He composed a more elaborate, and in some respects significantly different second version of his ideas in a text that was printed in or shortly after 1600,
1 (Proclus 1970), pp. 1517. 2 (Proclus 1533), appendix to (Euclid 1533). 3 (Proclus 1560). 4 (Crapulli 1969). 5 (Romanus 1597).

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

but never effectively published. This text is van Roomens In Mahumedis arabis algebram prolegomena.6 We discuss the rst version in Sects. 35, and the second version in Sects. 89 below. Because copies of the text from the Prolegomena have been very scarce, the second version has not previously been examined in connection with the Mathesis Universalis tradition; the analysis of van Roomens ideas in Crapullis monograph on the Mathesis Universalis7 is exclusively based on the rst version. Adriaan van Roomen or Adrianus Romanus (15611615) studied medicine, rst at the university of Cologne, then at Leuven university. From 1586 onward he taught, mathematics and medicine at the same university. In 1593, he accepted a professorship in medicine at the recently founded university of Wrzburg, glad to be able to leave the tumultuous Netherlands, where war was raging. Van Roomen remained in Wrzburg until 1607, when he offered his resignation as a professor. During the following years we nd him alternately at Leuven and Wrzburg, and between 1610 and 1612 in the Polish town of Zamo, where he taught mathematics to the young Thomas Zamojski, son of the statesman Jan Zamojski (15411605). Van Roomen died in Mainz on 29 September 1615, on a journey from Wrzburg to the Netherlands, hoping to be healed in the thermal baths of Spa. In Leuven as well as in Wrzburg, van Roomens main assignment was to teach medicine. His intellectual interests were, however, predominantly oriented towards mathematics. Very early he made up a plan to publish an overview of the whole eld of mathematics, totius mathesis idea. As a rst part of this project, he worked on a theoria polygonorum, a theory of the regular polygons. This should result in tables of sines, tangents and secants, and in a solution of the circle squaring problem, which for him meant the calculation of the proportion between the circumference and the diameter of a circle. The work was intended to have 12 chapters, of which the rst four would treat the regular 3-, 4-, 5- and 15-gon, and the related polygons produced by a repeated doubling of the number of sides. Sections 59 would treat all other regular polygons. In Chaps. 10 and 11 van Roomen would study the circle. Section 10 would teach how to compute its circumference and area. Section 11 would examine the many faulty or simply wrong solutions to the problem of squaring of the circle. Finally, Sect. 12 would show how the necessary arithmetical operations can be carried out with the least difculty. This project could only partially be realized by van Roomen. A rst part was published in 1593 as Ideae mathematicae pars prima, sive Methodus Polygonorum,8 consisting of the rst 4 of the 12 projected chapters, with a short remark on the squaring of the circle, to be treated in the tenth chapter. The other chapters remained unpublished, but some fragments did appear under different titles, or were included in other works. Chapter 11 on the faulty methods of squaring the circle thus was used in the book, mentioned above, in which van Roomen introduced his idea of a Mathesis Universalis for the rst time. The immediate reason for publishing this book was the appearance of a new solution to this famous problem from Antiquity that was proclaimed as nal.

6 (Romanus after 1600). 7 (Crapulli 1969). 8 (Romanus 1593).

123

P. Bockstaele

2 A defense of Archimedes measurement of a circle 2.1 A philologist ventures into mathematics After the departure of the law and history professor Justus Lipsius (15471606) from Leiden in 1591, this university had to nd a comparable substitute. After difcult negotiations, the French philologist Josephus Justus Scaliger (15401609) nally accepted the invitation, but only on condition that he would not have to teach. Towards the end of August 1593, he arrived at Leiden. Before the year had even ended he offered two books for publication at the ofcina of Franciscus Raphelengius (15391597), the rst, Cyclometrica Elementa duo,9 on the squaring of the circle, and the second, Mesolabium,10 on the duplication of the cube. The rst of these books was dedicated to the States of Holland, West-Friesland and Zeeland, the second to the curators of Leiden University and the mayors of the town. Both books were intended by Scaliger as tokens of gratitude for his appointment, but undoubtedly also to serve as a clear proof of his immense erudition. Already in 1590, Scaliger had announced, in a pamphlet written in Greek and Latin verses, that he had solved the three famous mathematical problems of Antiquity, the squaring of the circle, the trisection of an angle and the duplication of the cube. In lectures held at Tours in 1592, and again in 1593 in the eighth book of his Varia responsa,11 Franois Vite (15401603) had refuted Scaligers claims, but this did not stop Scaliger publishing his solutions. In particular, in his Cyclometrica Elementa he is very condent that he has indeed squared the circle according to the rules of geometry.12 All earlier attempts, in particular the one by Archimedes in On the measurement of a circle,13 are rmly discarded. Immediately after publication, critical remarks were made from several directions. The rst to point out some mistakes in Scaligers work was Ludolf van Ceulen (15401610), a reckoning master and fencing instructor, rst at Delft and then in Leiden, who in 1600 became a mathematics teacher at the engineering school of Leiden university. He advised Scaliger not to distribute the book in order not to compromise his reputation. Scaliger only responded with derision and scorn. Van Roomen rst saw Scaligers Cyclometrica Elementa in the fall of 1594 at the book fair in Frankfurt. He wrote about it in a letter to Scaliger, dated October 4, promising to read the book and report his opinion on the quadrature as soon as he would
9 (Scaliger 1594a). 10 (Scaliger 1594b). 11 (Vite 1593b). 12 Scaligers solution of the problem of squaring the circle can be summarized as follows. In the rst

part of the Cyclometrica Elementa duo he focuses on the circumference of the circle. According to Proposition VI (p. 31), the square of the circumference of any circle is ten times the square on its diameter. As a consequence, the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (i.e. what we call ) equals 10. Subsequently, Scaliger gives a construction of a straight line equal to the circumference of a circle (Proposition 7, p. 37). Part two of the Cyclometrica Elementa deals with the area of the circle. In Scaligers view, the area of any circle is equal to a rectangle contained by the side of the equilateral triangle inscribed in the circle, and nine tenths of the diameter (Proposition III, Corollary, p. 80).
13 (Archimedes n.y.), pp. 9198.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

nd the time.14 Judging from what he wrote to Christopher Clavius (15381612) on 20 November 1594, his opinion was certainly far from positive: he was astonished that Scaliger even had dared to publish such a book!15 Even more devastating is his letter to Lipsius of 8 February 1595, in which he wrote that Scaligers Cyclometrica Elementa contained nothing more than idle vanity and false opinions.16 Probably already in November 1594, van Roomen had communicated his judgment to Scaliger through Raphelengius. At rst, Scaliger remained stubbornly unmoved by all critical remarks; he merely ascribed these to the jealousy and malice of his critics, or to their lack of knowledge. But when more and more precise indications of his mistakes were made, he published before the end of the year (the Ad Lectorem dates from 22 November 1594) an Appendix to his Cyclometrica Elementa17 , in which indeed he introduced some minor corrections, still maintaining that Archimedes was wrong, and that he himself had solved the quadrature of the circle. A copy of this Appendix was sent to van Roomen, and on 31 March 1595 Scaliger sent him a letter, in which he complained about the way he was treated with regard to his Cyclometrica Elementa. He was sorry for the few mistakes he had made, but the Appendix proved that he was strong enough to correct them. He still maintained that he had proven without conditions that Archimedes Measurement of a Circle was wrong. Anyone, who dared to doubt his proof, was either ill-willed or simply unable to understand his reasoning. Scaliger concluded his plea with the words: our mistakes we have corrected; what appeared to be wrong, but was not, we have claried. He asks van Roomen for a milder judgment: our mistakes are not as numerous and not as big as you critics think.18 After so much stubbornness, combined with an apparent lack of elementary mathematical knowledge, van Roomen felt himself obliged to write a reaction and to defend Archimedes against Scaligers attacks.19 First of all, he wanted to prevent the huge fame of the French philologist being considered a warrant for his opinions in mathematics. For this reason, van Roomen began a thorough rebuttal of Scaligers Cyclometrica Elementa. By the end of 1595 it was ready for print, but difculties with nding a printer postponed its publication.20 Only in 1597 was the book nally ready. As its full

14 (Bockstaele 1992), p. 6. 15 Josephus Scaliger librum edidit de quadratura circuli: de quo non expectabis meum judicium aliud,

quam mirari me eum virum talia voluisse in lucem edere (Bockstaele 1976) letter 11, p. 113.
16 Scaliger edidit, ut intelligo, Calendarii Gregoriani castigationem, sed existimo eum castigatione dignum; edidit opus Mathematicum inscriptum Elementa Cyclometrica, in quibus praeter vanas jactationes et falsa dogmata nil reperire est aliud (Bockstaele 1976) letter 13, p. 116. 17 (Scaliger 1594c). 18 Non enim tanti sunt, neque tot errores nostri, quanti & quot vobis summis crtiticis videntur (Bockstaele

1976), letter 14, p. 117. Van Roomen published the letter in (Romanus 1597), p. 56. Here as elsewhere in the following, translations into English are mine if nothing to the contrary is indicated.
19 See for this van Roomens own report in (Romanus 1597), p. 56. 20 In a letter to Clavius, dated to October 1595, van Roomen reported: Me totam ejus appendicem

(Scaligers Appendix) examinasse, perpendisse, nihil in ea intactum reliquisse: atque in forma dialogorum omnia ejus dicta refutasse. Dialogos hisce nondinis obtuli Typographo. In quo inveniendo magna mihi fuit difcultas, cum Mathematica non soleant invenire Typographos valde paratos (Bockstaele 1976) letter 15, p. 118.

123

P. Bockstaele

title21 indicates, the work consists of three parts. The rst part (pp. 118) contains the Greek text of Archimedes On the measurement of a circle with a Latin translation and a summary of the book. The second part (pp. 1955), is the Apology of Archimedes against the attacks of Scaliger. In the third part (pp. 55112) the quadratures of the circle, as proposed by Orontius Finaeus (14941555), Raymarus Ursus (15511600), and Scaliger are analyzed and refuted in ten dialogues. The rst ve dialogues were written by van Roomen aetate juvenili (probably they were originally meant to gure in chapter 11 of the Theoria polygonorum). For our purposes only part two, the Apology, is important. Here van Roomen introduced for the rst time his idea of a prima mathematica or Mathesis Universalis. 2.2 What exactly does Scaliger blame Archimedes for? The Apologia pro Archimede consists of nine chapters, very different in length. In Sect. 1, van Roomen examines Scaligers objections to the method used by Archimedes in the Measurement of a Circle. He summarizes Scaligers position as follows In every science the conclusions should be deduced from the principles of that science, and using only the proper means of that science. Finding a square covering an equal area as a given circle belongs to geometry, and hence is a conclusion proper to geometry. Therefore the quadrature of the circle should be deduced from the principles of geometry. But this is not the way Archimedes proceeded, because he attempted to solve the quadrature of the circle using an arithmetical approach. Hence, his proof is worthless, as it was reached through principles which are foreign to geometry.22 Van Roomen concludes that Scaliger rejects the use of numbers in geometrical proofs as being foreign to geometry. Scaligers position is clearly based on what Aristotle had written on scientic proof in the Analytica posteriora: In demonstrating we cannot pass from one genus to another. We cannot, for instance, prove geometrical truths by arithmetic.23 Van Roomen then wants to show that numbers are not to be rejected from geometry, and indeed that the use of numbers cannot be avoided, as there are close ties between geometry and arithmetic, and as both sciences have a number of elements in common. In Sect. 2, van Roomen maintains that arithmetic does not need the assistance of geometry, although quite often arithmetical propositions are demonstrated with
21 In Archimedis Circuli Dimensionem Expositio et Analysis. Apologia pro Archimede ad Clariss. Virum Iosephum Scaligerum. Exercitationes cyclicae contra Iosephum Scaligerum, Orontium Finaeum, et Raymarum Ursum, in decem Dialogos distinctae (Romanus 1597). Although the title page mentions Wrzburg as the place of publication, the work was in fact printed by de Candolle in Geneva. 22 Conclusiones cuiuslibet scientiae per principia et media propria illius scientiae probari debet. Sed circulum alimve guram quadrare, Geometriae est, atque conclusio Geometriae propria. Ergo circuli quadratura, per principia Geometrica probari et demonstrari debet. At non fecit id ipsum Archimedes. Nam conatus est circuli quadraturam ostendere Arithmetic. Ergo cm probaverit principio vel medio Geometria alieno, demonstratio eius nulla habenda est (Romanus 1597), p. 19. 23 Anal. Post., i 7 75a 3839 (Aristotle 1952), p. 103.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

geometrical gures. Arithmetic studies the properties of numbers. These properties are either specic for numbers (as even and uneven, prime or composite, relatively prime, etc.), or common to all quantities, for instance when they involve sums, differences, products, ratios, proportionalities, etc. All these properties can be demonstrated without the use of lines, surfaces or bodies. Van Roomen quotes a remark of Joannes Stein in his 1581 edition of Reiner Gemma Frisius (15081555) Arithmeticae practicae Methodus facilis. Regarding the nding of square roots, Stein wrote, referring to the identity (a + b)2 = a 2 + 2ab + b2 , that it would be ridiculous to appeal to geometry in providing a proof. Even without geometry, the truth of the matter appears from the nature of the numbers themselves.24 He makes an analogous remark with regard to the cube root, referring to the formula for (a + b)3 . The teacher should prove this formula from arithmetical principles. Involvement of geometry is completely unnecessary. One last quotation from Steins commentary opposes applied reckoning to theoretical arithmetic When we are dealing with numbers that are applied to physical objects, where areas or volumes are concerned, some geometrical knowledge may be appropriate. This is called practical or logistical arithmetic. But when we are dealing solely with numbers, the help of geometry is not needed.25 Further proof that arithmetic has no need for geometry is, according to van Roomen, provided by books 7, 8 and 9 of Euclids Elements,in which all propositions concerning numbers are demonstrated solely by means of numbers. This does not exclude, however, many arithmetical propositions being proven or explained by geometrical means. This emerges clearly from the work of several viri docti, demonstrating e.g. the rules for squaring, for calculating cubes or other similar rules with the help of magnitudes. Van Roomen thus mentions the commentator of Diophantus26 and Girolamo Cardano (15011576) in his Ars magna.27 In particular van Roomen refers to Giovanni Battista Benedetti (15301590), who in his Speculationes mathematicae et physicae28 had demonstrated all arithmetical propositions with the aid of lines, after the example of Euclid in the second book of the Elements. Benedetti explained his method by saying that it is less abstract, as one could reason starting from actual gures. 2.3 Van Roomen refutes the criticism of Scaliger In Sects. 35 van Roomen turns to the refutation of Scaligers thesis that the use of numbers ought not to be admitted in geometrical proof. In Sect. 3, he refers to recent
24 (Gemma Frisius 1581), p. 80. 25 (Gemma Frisius 1581), p. 93. 26 Van Roomen refers to the commentary on the rst two books of Diophantus Arithmetica, attributed to Maximos Planudes, in the Latin translation by Xylander (Diophantus 1575). The book was part of van Roomens library. 27 (Cardano 1545). 28 (Benedetti 1585); Van Roomen owned a copy of this edition, a reprint of the rst edition.

123

P. Bockstaele

mathematicians, who have used numbers in geometrical demonstrations. One could ll pages with examples, but in order not to bore the reader, van Roomen only cites a few. Federigo Commandino (15091575), commenting on the Measurement of a Circle in his edition of Archimedean works, calls this method of proof not only justied, but also correct.29 Clavius in his elaboration of the Elements, in particular where he tries to clarify the Definitions 6 and 8 of book 5 regarding equality and inequality of ratios, uses numbers and their properties.30 Van Roomen further refers to authors of books on practical geometry. He mentions Michael Stifel (c. 14871567), Peletier, Gemma Frisius, Niccol Tartaglia (1499 or 15001557) and Johann Scheubel (1494 1570). All of them use numbers when discussing problems involving proportions of lines, areas or bodies, and when talking of stereometry, as in the determination of the volume of barrels, or the length, width and height of buildings. In particular the calculation of tables of sines and tangents is of crucial importance. In this context van Roomen mentions Ioannes Regiomontanus (14361476), Georg Joachim Rheticus (15141574), who express in numbers the proportions of sines, which are half chords, to the radius of the circle. A nal support for his thesis is taken from Francesco Maurolico (14941575), who wrote the second book of his Arithmetica31 to teach how to nd the measure of magnitudes with the help of numbers. This may still not be sufcient to convince Scaliger. For this reason van Roomen calls another witness, one whom Scaliger cannot possibly dismiss, Euclid himself, on whose authority and reliability Scaliger constantly builds. Euclid uses concepts as the double or a multiple of magnitudes. This is nothing else than to have a proportion as 2 to 1, or e.g. as 100 to 1. Similar expressions can be found very frequently, also in the geometrical books of the Elements. Van Roomen cites many examples, as for instance Definition 4 from book 5: Magnitudes are said to have a ratio to one another which are capable, when multiplied, of exceeding one another, or Definition 5 of the same book regarding equality of ratios. Van Roomen concludes with a question to Scaliger: If Euclid may be allowed to use double or multiple proportions, why can Archimedes not do the same? Why is what is permitted to Euclid forbidden to Archimedes? Finally in Sect. 5, Scaliger is called as a witness against himself. Van Roomen quotes a number of examples from the Cyclometrica elementa and the Appendix where Scaliger uses numbers. He quotes Scaliger complaining that Archimedes uses so many and such huge numbers, that no reader could follow his arguments. But van Roomen replies mockingly Which reader do you mean, Scaliger? A reader who has no knowledge of mathematics? He will not be able to understand Archimedes numbers. Or someone who is able and up to the level of Archimedes? Such a reader will certainly not be lost by the use of numbers.32
29 (Archimedes 1558). 30 (Clavius 1591) vol. 1. pp. 249255. The Definitions 6 and 8 are 5 and 7 in Heibergs numbering. 31 (Maurolico 1575). 32 Sed quem lectorem intelligis Scaliger? Matheseos omnino ignarum? Is san ex numeris Archime-

dis pedem non extricabit. Sin aptum et Archimede dignum intelligas, negabo lectorem se ex numeris eius expedire non posse. (Romanus 1597), p. 22.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

As a nal proof of Scaligers being wrong, van Roomen mentions Proposition V from the Cyclometrica Elementa.33 Scaliger calculates the circumference of a regular polygon with twelve sides. He nds that it is larger than the circumference of the circumscribed circle. Van Roomen remarks that even Scaliger ought to know that a chord is smaller than its corresponding arc, and that as a result the sum of all twelve sides, this is the circumference of the polygon, is smaller than the sum of the twelve corresponding arcs, this is the circumference of the circle. Yet, he doesnt seem to accept this, since he concludes his calculation with Sed per numeros aliter deprehenditur (from the calculation it appears to be different), as if he feels that the calculated result is the more convincing of the two conicting results. 3 A science common to arithmetic and geometry After having discarded Scaligers criticism of Archimedes, van Roomen starts exploring in Chap. 6 the connection between arithmetic and geometry. Once it has been sufciently demonstrated that expressing and proving properties of magnitudes with the help of numbers is not at all unusual, the question arises in which cases this is possible. Indeed, not all properties of magnitudes can be treated this way. In many propositions and constructions Euclid makes no use of numbers, and even if he had wanted to, it would not have been possible. Van Roomen gives some examples: to draw a straight line at right angles to a given straight line from a given point on it (I, prop. 11), to construct a triangle out of three straight lines (I, prop. 22) etc. He then recounts how he struggled a long time with the problem of which properties of magnitudes can be explained by numbers, and how he nally discovered Eutocius commentary on proposition 11 of the rst book of Apollonius Conica in the Latin translation by Commandino.34 In this proposition, Apollonius uses the concept of compound ratio. Eutocius denes this as follows: A ratio is said to be compounded of ratios, when its quantity is the product of the quantities of the compounding ratios. Eutocius denes this quantitas rationis as the number which denominates the proportion of the antecedens of the ratio to the consequens. Euclid uses the concept compound ratio in Elements VI, 23, but gives no definition. The above-mentioned definition can be found, however, in some manuscripts of the Elements, no doubt a later interpolation.35 The concept quantity or denominator of a ratio does not t in easily within Euclids system.36 It dates from a later period, when people started to associate proportionalities
33 (Scaliger 1594a), pp. 2831. 34 (Apollonius 1566). 35 Cf. (Euclid 1956) vol. 2, pp. 189190 (Definition VI-5 and commentary). 36 The definition of compound ratio in the Euclidian system can be formulated as follows. Given a sequence

of magnitudes A1 , A2 , . . . , An , and two other sequences B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn1 and C1 , C2 , . . . , Cn1 with [ Ai : Ai+1 ] = [ Bi :Ci ] for 1 i < n, then [ A1 : An ] is considered to be the compound ratio of [ B1 :C1 ], [ B2 :C2 ], . . . , [ Bn1 :Cn1 ]. In particular [ A1 : An ] is the compound ratio of [ A1 : A2 ], [ A2 : A3 ], . . . , [ An1 : An ]. When A1 , A2 , . . . , An are continuously proportional, then the ratio of A1 to A3 is the duplicate ratio of A1 to A2 , [ A1 : A4 ] is the triplicate ratio of [ A1 : A2 ], [ A1 : A5 ] the quadruplicate ratio of [ A1 : A2 ], etc. (see Elements, V, Definitions 9 and 10).

123

P. Bockstaele

or ratios with numbers. As an application of the given definition Eutocius proves the following theorem: When A , B and C are magnitudes of the same kind, then the ratio of A to C is the compound ratio of A to B and B to C . We will return to this in Sect. 4.3 below. Here, it is sufcient to remark that Eutocius uses the theorem for ratios of lines, although the proof, which he provides, applies to numbers. He concludes his comments with the following observation One should not be disturbed by the fact that the geometrical proposition is demonstrated from arithmetical considerations. The old mathematicians very often made use of such demonstrations, which belong rather to mathematics than to arithmetic, because of the use of proportionalities. Moreover, what is being sought is arithmetical, because ratios, the quantity of ratios, and multiplication are rst of all proper to numbers, but secondly through numbers also proper to magnitudes, according to the following statement: Arithmetic and geometry are cognate sciences.37 From Eutocius text van Roomen is able to deduce the following: 1. Eutocius proof is situated in geometry, but he makes use of numbers. The ancient mathematicians had the habit of using numbers in geometrical proofs. 2. Ratios and multiplications are rst of all proper to numbers, but secondly also to magnitudes. To compare ratios, one should rst express them with numbers, which are their termini38 and the so-called denominator. This implies that in working with ratios of magnitudes, the use of numbers cannot be avoided, because only with numbers is it possible to express the habitus or proportion of the antecedens of a ratio to the consequens. 3. Arithmetic and geometry are germane sciences. As a result, it is not surprising that they can be of mutual assistance to one another and that arithmetical propositions can be demonstrated with the aid of gures, or vice versa geometrical propositions with the help of numbers. In particular, the statement of Eutocius commentary (see item 2. above) that proportions are of a mathematical rather than of an arithmetical nature, was intriguing to van Roomen. Certainly, it could not mean that arithmetic was not a part of mathematics. Neither could it mean that proportions belong to geometry rather than to arithmetic. This would be in contradiction to what Eutocius writes immediately after this statement, saying that proportions are rst of all arithmetical, as they are valid rst of all for numbers. Van Roomen concludes that what Eutocius calls mathematical demonstrations, is neither to be taken as arithmetical nor geometrical, but as something belonging to a science which is common to both. Proportions are not only found with
37 Non perturbentur autem qui in haec inciderint, quod illud ex Arithmeticis demonstretur. Antiqui enim huiusmodi demonstrationibus saepe uti consueverunt; quae tamen Mathematicae potius sunt quam Arithmeticae, propter analogias. Adde quod quaesitum Arithmeticum est, nam proportiones, proportionum quantitates, et multiplicationes, primo numeris, secundo loco per numeros et magnitudinibus insunt, ex illius sententia, qui ita scripsit: Hae enim mathematicae disciplinae germanae esse videntur. (Romanus 1597), pp. 2223. 38 The termini of a (rational) ratio are the numerator and denominator of its so-called denominator or

quantitas rationis, written as an irreducible fraction.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

abstract quantities as numbers and magnitudes, but also with concrete quantities such as times, tones, voices, places, movements, forces. Because proportio can be found in so many different cases, it should not be surprising that propositions concerning ratios and proportionalities are neither to be viewed as geometrical, nor arithmetical. Therefore, it cannot be the exclusive task of arithmetic or geometry to study these properties; it should be done by a common science transcending the various mathematical disciplines. What Eutocius calls absolute mathematicam, should be understood as being part of a scientia mathematica universalis, which studies and demonstrates all properties common to all quantities. Van Roomen further remarks that, as far as he can tell, among philosophers only Pereira mentions such a science. From his De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis van Roomen quotes the following: There exists a general mathematical science, which studies the properties common to all magnitudes and numbers. Mathematicians, however, do not consider this science as distinct from arithmetic or geometry.39 4 Van Roomens mathesis universalis, rst version After having argued, on the basis of Eutocius statement, that a Mathesis Universalis exists, van Roomen gives an outline of this science. in Chapter 7 of the Apologia pro Archimede40 He wants to show that this Mathesis Universalis contains propositions and demonstrations which neither belong to arithmetic nor to geometry because they do not specify the magnitudes involved. Van Roomen proposes to call this science prima mathematica. It is a general science of quantity, the subject of all mathematical sciences, pure and mixed. Its principles and results will therefore be valid in each one of these sciences. Van Roomen presents an outline of the principles, which are the definitions and axioms, together with some theorems. He does not intend to be complete, but only presents what is necessary to make his ideas clearer. Anyone can freely add new material from the fth book of the Elements, since anything that is said there concerning magnitudes is also valid for any kind of quantity. As a source, van Roomen uses Christopher Clavius commentary of the Elements, from which he often quotes whole passages verbatim.41 4.1 Definitions The rst part of the Mathesis Universalis consists of 29 definitions,42 or, more exactly, what van Roomen considers to be definitions. Very often, these are nothing more than
39 Cf. Non est dubium quin sit aliqua scientia Mathematica communis, quae debeat speculari affectiones communes magnitudini et numero, quae tamen scientia Mathematicis non numeratur distincte Geometria et Arithmetica. (Pereira 1576), p. 37. 40 (Romanus 1597), pp. 2332. 41 Clavius edition of the Elements appeared for the rst time in Rome in 1574. Van Roomen had a copy

of the third edition, Cologne 1591, (Euclid 1591). In this paper we refer always to this edition.
42 (Romanus 1697), pp. 2428; all Romanus quotations in this section are from these pages.

123

P. Bockstaele

denominations of things, in other cases they should rather be called postulates, and in a few cases they are in fact theorems. The rst definition introduces the concept sum of quantities: The sum of quantities is a quantity equal to several quantities of the same kind taken together. As a definition, it is not really revealing, but as a postulate it stipulates that for every kind of quantity there is some single-valued operation which has the role of addition. Definition 2 introduces the difference of two quantities: Differentia or residuum is the mutual comparison of two quantities of the same kind according to the excess of one above the other. Definition 3 claries Euclids expression that a quantity measures a quantity.43 Measuring quantity (quantitas mensurans) or in short measure (mensura) is a quantity which, taken once or several times, is equal to a quantity of the same kind, of which it is the measure. Measuring a quantity then means to be contained exactly once or several times in the quantity. This meaning of measure is also used in Definition 4, where the concept of common measure of quantities is introduced. Starting from Definition 5 van Roomen closely follows book V of the Elements according to Clavius, whom he often quotes, although he systematically replaces the term magnitude by quantity. In Definitions 5, 6 and 7 the concepts part and multiple of a quantity are discussed. Euclid denes part of a quantity as follows (Def. V-1): a quantity is a part of a quantity, the less of the greater, when it measures the greater. Clavius observes that the mathematicians make a distinction between two sorts of parts, the pars aliquota, which measures the whole quantity, and the pars aliquanta, which does not measure the whole. Van Roomen also makes this distinction in the Definitions 5 and 6, but uses in both cases the term pars aliquanta. In a scholion van Roomen remarks that pars from Definition 5 and mensura from Definition 3 are ratione different , non in re. Definition 744 goes as follows: A multiple is, the greater quantity of the less, when it is measured by the less. In introducing the concept of ratio of quantities (Definition 8) van Roomen takes a position different from that of Clavius. Clavius gives the definition of Euclid45 : A ratio is a sort of relation in respect of size between two magnitudes of the same kind. Van Roomen attempts to improve on this definition. He starts from the definition of proportion or ratio of integer numbers, as given by Clavius in his comments to Def. VII-24.46 A ratio of quantities is the comparison of two quantities in so far as one of them is equal to the other, or is a part or parts of the greater, or contains the less exactly once or several times, or exceeds it by a part or by parts. As an addition, van Roomen then denes the denominator of a ratio: this is the number that clearly denominates the relationship (habitudo) of one quantity to the other.47 We will denote the ratio of a quantity A to a quantity B as [ A: B ], and the denominator of the ratio as den [ A: B ].

43 Elements,V, def. 1, (Euclid 1591) vol. 1, p. 194. 44 Corresponding to Defs. V-2 and VII-5, (Euclid 1591) vol. 1, pp. 194195, and vol. 2, p. 4 respectively. 45 Def. V-3, (Euclid 1591) vol. 1, p. 195. 46 (Euclid 1591), vol. 2, p. 11. 47 Denominator rationis est numerus qui exprimit distincte et aperte habitudinem quantitatis unius ad

alterum.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

In Definition 9, van Roomen introduces the term terminationes of a rational ratio. These refer to the two smallest possible integer numbers which constitute an equal ratio. Clavius calls them termini or radices of the ratio. Definition 10 introduces the terms antecedens and consequens for the two terms of the ratio. The antecedens is the one which is being compared, the consequens the one to which it is being compared. It is unclear what is meant by Definition 11: The number of terms of a ratio is at least two. There can be more terms, but then the number of antecedentes should be equal to the number of consequentes. This is probably an incorrect interpretation of Claviuss Definition 9 in book 5: a proportion exists of at least three terms. Proportio refers here to proportionality, not to ratio.48 In Definition 12, a distinction is made between the ratios of commensurable terms and the ratios of incommensurable terms. Definitions 13 to 21 are not important for our subject. They give the traditional division of rational proportions in rationes aequalitatis and rationes inaequalitatis maiores and minores, depending on whether the antecedens is equal to, larger or smaller than the consequens. Definition 22 is an extension of Definition 12: it determines the meaning of ratio incommensurabilis: a ratio of terms without common measure. The remaining definitions deal with proportionality. Quantities with the same ratio, the rst to the second and the third to the fourth, are said to be proportional (Definition 23). For equality of ratios van Roomen gives two definitions. The rst is the one given by Clavius for the proportionality of integer numbers: Quantities are proportional, when the rst is the same multiple of the second, or the same part or parts, as the third of the fourth. Or when the rst contains the second as many times with the same part or parts as the third contains the fourth.49 This can, however, only be applied to rational proportions. For this reason van Roomen gives what he calls a generalis definitio. It is Definition 5 of book V of Euclids Elements, verbatim taken from Clavius.50 The Definitions 2429 are the Definitions 1216 from book V of the Elements.51 They dene the nomenclature for the proportionalities which arise from the transformation of the proportionality [ A: B ] = [C : D ]. For instance [ A:C ] = [ B : D ] is called the alterna proportio (def. 24), or [( A + B ): B ] = [(C + D ): D ] the coniuncta proportio (def. 26). This also has been taken over from Clavius. 4.2 Axioms The second part of the Mathesis Universalis consists of 23 axioms.52 As for the definitions, the term axiom should not be understood in its modern meaning. The rst 14 axioms are the communes notiones from book I of Euclids Elements, apart from some
48 (Euclid 1591) vol. 1, p. 255; Clavius is inconsistent in the use of the term proportio. In book 5, Def. 4 he denes proportio est rationum similitudo (proportion is the equality of ratios) (Euclid 1591) vol. 1. p. 195. On other occasions he uses proportio with the meaning of ratio. 49 Def. VII-20, (Euclid 1591) vol. 2., p. 9. 50 Def V-5, (Euclid 1591) vol. 1., p. 244. 51 Defs V-1216 (Euclid 1591) vol. 1., pp. 258259. 52 [Romanus 1697], pp. 2829; all Romanus quotations in this section are from these pages.

123

P. Bockstaele

minor additions, literally transcribed from Clavius.53 We will translate these axioms, using current mathematical notations. 1. a = c and b = c a = b. a = b and c > a c > b. a = b and a > c b > c. 2. a = b and c = d a + c = b + d . 3. a = b and c = d a c = b d . 4. a = b and c = d a + c = b + d . a > b and c > d a + c > b + d . 5. a = b and c = d a c = b d . a > b and c < d a c > b d . 6. a = b 2a = 2b. 7. a = b 1/2a = 1/2b. 8. a = b and c = d (a + c) (b + d ) = (c d ). 9. a = b and c = d (a + c) (b + d ) = (a b). 10. a = b and c = d (a c) (b d ) = (d c). 11. a = b and c = d (a c) (b d ) = (a b). 12. 2a 2b = 2(a b). 13. The whole is greater than each of its parts and equal to all its parts together. 14. Wholes, compounded from the same number of equal parts, are equal. That in fact is nothing else than a more general form of axiom 2. (For 15, 16 see below.) 17. a > b b + (a b) = a . 18. a > b a (a b) = b. Axioms 15 and 16 are important, in particular in view of the arithmetization of the theory of ratios and the refutation of Scaligers criticism of Archimedes. Both axioms are taken from Clavius. They postulate that for every given ratio [a :b] and every randomly chosen quantity c, there exist a quantity x of the same kind as c, even if this quantity is unknown, with [a :b] = [c:x ], and a quantity y of the same kind as c, even if one does not know it, with [a :b] = [ y :c].54 Note that the quantity c does not need to be of the same kind as quantities a and b. The axioms, then, postulate the existence of a fourth proportional to any three quantities, provided the rst two are of the same kind.55 Clearly, the arithmetization of the theory of ratios, which started with the introduction of the denominator or quantitas rationis, was still fraught with many problems and uncertainty. This is shown by axioms 19 and 20. Let us rst look at axiom 20: A quantity, which divides a quantity, yields as its quotient always a number, which is to
53 (Euclid 1591) Vol. 1., pp. 1319. 54 Axiom 15: Quam proportionem habet quantitas ad quantitatem, eandem habebit quaevis quantitas prop-

osita ad aliquam aliam, licet ignotum. Axiom 16: Quam proportionem habet quantitas ad quantitatem, eandem habebit quaepiam alia quantitas, etiamsi ignota, ad quamvis magnitudinem propositam.
55 The axioms deviate from the Euclidean canon because they imply the existence of irrational numbers; see Section 6 below and the comments of Heath on the assumption of existence of the fourth proportional in (Euclid 1956) vol. 2, pp. 170171.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

the unit as the divided quantity is to the dividing quantity. The meaning of the quotient is the number, which indicates which multiple, part or parts the divided quantity is of the dividing.56 Here an operation division between quantities of the same kind is introduced. Considering the second part of the axiom, the operation seems limited to commensurable quantities. That the quotient of the two quantities is also the quantitas rationis or the denominator of their ratio is not mentioned. Axiom 19 was apparently meant to be the reverse of axiom 20: A quantity can only be multiplied by a number, and this number is to the unit as the produced quantity is to the one multiplied. This multiplier is the number that indicates which multiple, part or parts the produced quantity is of the multiplied quantity.57 Here van Roomen seems to say that multiplication is dened only if the multiplicator is rational. Axiom 21 states that equal ratios have equal duplicate ratios, triplicate ratios, etc. Inversely, axiom 22 states that ratios with equal duplicate ratios, equal triplicate ratios, etc. are equal. The nal axiom 23 repeats what we already found with Eutocius: the denominator of a ratio multiplied with the consequens of the ratio, produces the antecedens. In a scholion van Roomen remarks that this is rather self-evident, as the denominator expresses the habitudo or the way of being of the antecedens with regard to the consequens. 4.3 Theorems The third part of the Mathesis Universalis consists of a number of theorems.58 A rst group, without a title, starts with the theorem about compound ratios that we already found with Eutocius. Given a number of quantities in a random order, the ratio of the rst to the last is said to be compounded from the ratio of the rst to the second, of the second to the third, of the third to the fourth, etc. until the last ratio. It is to be proved that the denominator of the compound ratio is the product of the denominators of the compounding ratios. Van Roomen gives three proofs, respectively ascribed to Theon, Eutocius and Vitello (2nd half 13th C.). His source is the commentary by Clavius.59 Theons proof consists of three examples using concrete numbers. In the other proofs van Roomen represents the quantities as well as the numbers by capitals. To make a clear distinction, we will use small letters for the denominator of ratios. Here is Eutocius proof:
56 Quantitas quantitatem dividens facit quotientem semper numerum, qui ita sese habet ad unitatem, sicut divisa quantitas ad dividentem. Significat autem quotiens numerum quo quantitas dividens, dividendae est multiplex, pars vel partes. 57 Quantitas nulla multiplicare potest, nisi per numerum, qui ita sese habet ad unitatem, sicut productae quantitatis ad multiplicatam. Significat autem multiplicator eum numerum, quo quantitas producta multiplicatae multiplex est vel pars vel partes. 58 [Romanus 1697] pp. 2932; all Romanus quotations in this section are from these pages. 59 Def. VI-5 (Euclid 1591) vol. 1 pp. 286291. The proofs by Theon, Eutocius and Vitellio are on

pp. 287289. For Theons proof Clavius refers to a scholion to the definition in question; for Eutocius proof to the commentary on theorem II-4 of Archimedes Sphere and cylinder, and to the commentary on prop. I-11 of Apollonius Conics; and for Vitellios proof to Prop. I-13 of the Perspectiva.

123

P. Bockstaele

Given three quantities (of the same kind) A , B and C , with den [ A: B ] = d and den [ B :C ] = e. Let de = f and f C = G . To prove: G = A , or de = f is the denominator of the ratio [ A:C ]. From what is given and from axiom 23, it follows that eC = B . Since f C = G , therefore [ Elements VII, 17]: [ f :e ] = [ G : B ] From de = f and dB = A , follows [ Elements VII, 17]: [e : B ] = [ f : A ] Exchange of the middle terms in (2) yields [e: f ] = [ B : A], or by inversion: [ f :e ] = [ A : B ] (3) (2) (1)

From (1) and (3) follows that [ A: B ] = [G : B ], and therefore A = G = f C , or f = de is the denominator of [ A:C ]. Vitellos proof goes as follows. Let den [ A: B ] = d , den[ B :C ] = e and den [ A:C ] = f . Then A = d B and A = f C , therefore also d B = f C . From the last equation follows [ Elements VII,9]: [ f :d ] = [ B :C ], and equally den [ f :d ] = den [ B :C ] = e, and f = de. Van Roomen does not ask himself whether these demonstrations are still valid for irrational proportions. Both the demonstrations of Eutocius and Vitello are based on theorems of Book VII of the Elements, which are only proven for integers. Furthermore in Eutociuss proof there appear ratios of which the terms are not of the same kind: the antecedens is a number, while the consequens may be any quantity [see (2)]. Clavius justies the validity of the theorem for irrational ratios as follows: Although the proof by Eutocius as well as the proof by Vitello are only valid for rational proportions, as both of them are based on Book VII of the Elements, where only integer numbers are discussed, they still are valid for irrational proportions, since what has been proven for ratios of numbers is also valid for ratios of incommensurable magnitudes. So we can conclude that both proofs are valid for all ratios.60 Theorem 2 also deals with compound ratios. Given a number of similar quantities A, B, C, D, and an equal number of similar quantities E, F, G, H. If [ A: B ] = [ E : F ], [ B :C ] = [ F :G ] and [C : D ] = [G : H ], then also the compound ratios [ A: D ] and [ E : H ] are equal. Van Roomens proof only comes down to reformulating the proposition: As the compounding ratios of [ A: D ] are equal to the compounding ratios of [ E : F ], then also the compound ratios are equal.
60 Etsi autem demonstratio tam Eutocii, quam Vitellionis proprie quadrat in proportiones tantum rationales, cum utraque propositionibus lib. 7. Euclidis nitatur; quia tamen, quae de numerorum proportionibus demonstrantur, convenient quoque magnitudinibus incommensurabilibus, hoc est, proportionibus irrationalibus, dici potest utraque demonstratio omnibus proportionibus convenire. (Euclid 1591) vol. 1, p. 289.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

Theorem 3 deals with duplicate ratios, triplicate ratios, etc. When in two sets with the same number of continuously proportional quantities A, B, C,. . . and D, E, F,. . . the ratio of the rst to the last quantity in the rst group is equal to the ratio of the rst to the last quantity in the second group, then also the ratios of the rst quantity to the second in both groups are equal. Here again, van Roomens proof is nothing more than a reformulation of the proposition. He seems not to notice that theorem 3 states the same as axiom 22: ratios with equal duplicate ratios, triplicate ratios, etc. are equal. The remaining theorems of group 1 formulate some simple identities. Everything is expressed in words. In the demonstrations the quantities are represented by letters, but there is no trace of any literal calculus. We give theorem 4 as an example: If one adds to the sum of two quantities their difference, then the result will be twice the greater quantity. Given the quantities A and B , A being the greater, their sum being C and their difference D . To prove that the sum of C and D is twice A Proof Since D is the excess of A over B , the sum of B and D is equal to A . By supposition, C is the sum of A and B . Adding equals to equals yields: B , D and C taken together are equal to the sum of B and the double of A . Subtract B from both. There remains C with D equal to the double of A, quod erat demonstrandum. The remaining theorems can be written in modern notation: 5. 6. 7. 8. ( A + B ) ( A B ) = 2 B , ( A > B ). A + B = C + D A C = D B , ( A > B , C > D ). ( A C ) + ( B D ) = ( A + B ) (C + D ), ( A + B > C + D , A > C , B > D ). ( A + B ) (C + D ) = ( A C ) ( D B ), ( A + B > C + D , A > C , B > D ).

In a second series of theorems, van Roomen shows how operations with ratios of quantities can be reduced to operations with ratios of numbers. He starts with three lemmas. We give only the third, because the rst one is only a special case of the third, whereas the second serves to deduce the third from the rst. Suppose the ratios of quantities A and B to a third quantity C to be given in the form of ratios of numbers: [ A:C ] = [d :e] and [ B :C ] = [ f :g ]. Then the ratio of A to B is equal tot the ratio of dg to ef. The proof goes as follows: Let dg = h , f e = i and eg = k . Then [ A:C ] = [d :e] = [dg :eg ] = [h :k ] and [C : B ] = [g : f ] = [eg :e f ] = [k :i ]. Ratios compounded from equal ratios are equal, thence [ A: B ] = [h :i ] = [dg :e f ].

123

P. Bockstaele

After the lemmas follow ve theorems. 1. If [ A:C ] = [d : f ] and [ B :C ] = [e: f ], then [( A + B ):C ] = [(d + e): f ] and [( A B ):C ] = [(d e): f ]. This is a special case of theorem 4. 2. This theorem states that [e A: A] = [ec:c], where A is a quantity, c a number, and e any integer, fractional or mixed number. Van Roomen proves this in a remarkable way, using two secondary elements, a quantity B and a number d . In the proof he uses an even more general form of the property that he sets out to prove, namely if [ A: B ] = [c:d ] then also [e A: B ] = [ec:d ]. 3. A special case of theorem 5: If [ A:C ] = [d : f ] and [ B :C ] = [e: f ], then A = (d /e) B . 4. If [ A:C ] = [d :e] and [ B :C ] = [ f :g ], then [( A + B ):C ] = [(dg + fe): eg] and [( A B ):C ] = [(dg fe): eg]. 5. If [ A:C ] = [d :e] and [ B :C ] = [ f :g ], then A = (dg/ef ) B . Van Roomen concludes Sect. 7 as follows From the foregoing theorems it becomes clear that, for whatever kind of quantities, additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions can be done with the aid of numbers as terms of ratios. Scaligers criticism of Archimedess use of numbers in determining the proportion of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is therefore ungrounded, as ratios can be dened solely with the aid of numbers.61 What van Roomen means with adding or subtracting quantities can be deduced from Definitions 1 and 2. It remains, however, unclear what he understands by multiplication and division of quantities. In axiom 20 he introduced an operation division between quantities, but most probably this is not what van Roomen really is after. A suggestion for the direction in which to look for an answer can be found in Sect. 8.

5 On the operations multiplication and division in geometry Van Roomen feels that still one important topic in geometry ought to be treated, i.e. how a rectangle is created through multiplication and division. In Sect. 8, he shows how the relation between the sides and the area of a rectangle can be expressed in numbers. He gives six theorems, of which only 3 and 4 are really important, as the other ones are only special cases of them. Theorem 3 states If the ratios of two lines to a third are given as ratios of numbers, then the rectangle contained by the rst two lines is to the square on the third line as the product of the two antecedentes of the number ratios is to the product of their consequentes.
61 Ex theorematibus praecedentibus manifestum est quarum vis quantitatum (sive eae sint magnitudines ut linea, supercies & corpus, sive numeri integri fracti & mixti, sive motus, sive tempora, sive pondera, aut alia hisce similia) additiones, subductiones, multiplicationes & divisiones, numeris tanquam terminis rationem continentibus, explicari posse (Romanus 1597), p. 32.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

Van Roomen notes the lines with the Greek characters , and ; ra(, ) is the rectangle with and as sides, and sq( ) the square on (the notations ra(, ) and sq( ) are mine; van Roomen describes the situations in full prose, PB). Given three lines , and with [ : ] = [a :b] and [ : ] = [c:d ], where a , b, c and d are numbers. To prove that [ra(, ):sq( )] = [ac:bd ]. From Elements VI, 1 and the data results [ra(, ):ra(, )] = [ : ] = [a :b] = [ac:bc], [ra(, ):sq( )] = [ : ] = [c:d ] = [bc:bd ]. The compound ratio of the two ratios on the left hand side is equal to the compound ratio of the two on the right hand side, that is: [ra(, ):sq( )] = [ac:bd ]. As a corollary van Roomen notes: From this appears how one nds the area, if the sides of a rectangle are given. If one chooses as the unit of length, then a /b is the measure of , and c/d the measure of . Sq( ) then is the unit of area, and ac/bd the measure of ra(, ). In Theorem 4 the ratio of the rst line to the third is given in numbers, as is the ratio of the rectangle contained by the rst two lines to the square on the third line If [ra(, ):sq( )] = [a :b] and [ : ] = [c:d ], to prove that [ : ] = [ad :bc]. From Elements VI, 1 and the data results [ra(, ):sq( )] = [a :b] = [ad :bd ], [ra(, ):ra(, )] = [d :c] = [bd :bc]. The compound ratio of the two ratios on the left hand side is equal to the compound ratio of the two on the right hand side, that is: [ra(, ):sq( )] = [ : ] = [ad :bc]. Speaking of magnitudes as lines and surfaces, a rectangle can be considered to be the product of its sides. Conversely, when a rectangle and one of its sides are given, then the other side can be found by division. It should be remarked, however, that nowhere in Sect. 8, multiplication of sides is mentioned, nor the division of a surface by a side. Van Roomen always uses the compounding of ratios, which comes down to the multiplication or division of measures. At the end of his text, van Roomen once more addresses Scaliger From what precedes, Scaliger, it follows that Archimedes was justied in expressing ratios of rectangles by numbers. It has now sufciently been demonstrated that ratios of magnitudes can be added, subtracted, multiplied and divided with the aid of numbers. How then can you reproach Archimedes that he is using non-mathematical methods in his Measurement of a Circle?62
62 (Romanus 1597), p. 35.

123

P. Bockstaele

After having concluded that all operations with ratios of quantities can be reduced to operations with numbers, van Roomen nds it useful to concentrate on the practical calculations. The reckoning with numbers had already been expounded by many arithmeticians. Van Roomen wants to give a more general character to arithmetic, so that it will not only be valid for numbers, but also for roots ( numeris radicalibus simplicibus et compositis) and cossic numbers, something, he believes no one before him has ever done. Under the title Methodus Arithmeticae practicae universalis he shows in the ninth and nal chapter of the Apologia pro Archimede how numbers, with or without a plus or minus sign, are to be added, subtracted, multiplied or divided. Numbers are to be represented by capitals. For cossic numbers he uses the symbols introduced by Stevin in his Arithmetique: a number placed in a little circle. This last, very elaborate chapter forms a rst attempt to the algebraic literal calculus.

6 The Mathesis Universalis in modern terms In the title of Sect. 6, van Roomen summarizes his idea of a prima mathematica or Mathesis Universalis as follows: est scientia quae quantitatem generaliter uti mensurabilem considerat, it is the science which considers quantity in general as measurable. The generality entails that the subject of the Mathesis Universalis is quantity in abstracto. It examines and proves the properties that are common to all sorts of quantities, both the abstract, such as numbers and magnitudes (lines, surfaces, bodies), and the concrete, such as times, tones, movements, forces, etc. What quantity is, is not explicitly but only implicitly dened by a number of rules and laws, to which it is subjected. In modern terms, every kind of quantity can be dened as a set in which the two operations addition and subtraction are dened, as well as a relation of equivalence and a relation of ordering. The sum of two quantities of the same kind is a quantity of the same kind, and addition is assumed to be commutative and associative. The connection between the equivalence relation, the ordering relation and these two operations are determined, albeit somewhat chaotically, in axioms 214. For quantities also scalar multiplication, that is multiplication by a number, is valid. A basic concept in the Mathesis Universalis is proportion or ratio. A ratio is an ordered pair of quantities of the same kind. The definition of proportionalitas (Definition 23) introduces an equivalence relation in the set of ratios. The relation greater than between ratios, as dened in Elements V, def. 7, introduces an ordering relation in the set of ratios. Van Roomen does not mention this definition. He only points out that Book V of the Elements belongs to the prima mathematica. Up to this point van Roomens Mathesis Universalis is situated within the boundaries of the classical Greek tradition. It only begins to deviate from it, when the measurability of quantities is put forward, that is the possibility of explaining their properties by means of numbers. The discovery of incommensurable magnitudes by the Pythagoreans caused a rupture in the relation magnitudenumber. Van Roomen attempts to rebuild this 2,000-year-old rupture by the arithmetization of the theory of ratios. He admits nding inspiration in the commentary on Apolloniuss Conica by Eutocius. One of his conclusions is that ratios of quantities can only be determined by

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

using numbers. Central to this repairing of the rupture between magnitude and number is the concept quantitas rationis or denominator. Eutocius denes the quantitas rationis as the number indicating the ratio ( numerus proportionem indicans) or the number denominating the ratio ( numerus a quo proportio ipsa denominatur). Concerning the quantitas rationis Eutocius further stipulates (which van Roomen does not mention): If the antecedens of a ratio is a multiple of the consequens, then the quantitas rationis is an integer number, in all other cases an integer number with a part or parts; unless one would admit inexpressible ratios such as those of incommensurable magnitudes.63 Van Roomen denes the quantitas proportionis or denominator rationis following Clavius as the number that clearly expresses the proportion of one quantity in relation to another. This definition is in fact an addition to the definition of a ratio (Definition 8), which, however, only concerns rational ratios. Definition 22 states what irrational ratios are, but nothing is said there regarding the denominator. In the theorems, the denominator is only explicitly mentioned in the proof of Eutociuss proposition on compound ratios (theorem 1 of group 1). In the proofs of the remaining theorems only the compounding of ratios is used. Contrary to Simon Stevin, who in his Arithmetique64 presented his innovative ideas concerning the concept of number, van Roomen is nowhere very explicit about his views. Some things can be deduced from his actual practice. In the last chapter of the Apologia pro Archimede it appears that he, like Stevin, accepts roots like 3 as numbers. The calculation of the ratios of lines was very familiar ground for van Roomen. Even before 1590, he had made plans for constructing tables of sines and tangents. For this project, he calculated, sometimes with hallucinating precision, the ratios of the sides of regular polygons to the radius of the circumscribed circle. He published his results in his Ideae mathematicae pars prima, sive Methodus Polygonorum,65 where he listed the sides of regular inscribed and circumscribed polygons of 3, 4, 5 and 15 sides with a radius of 1028 partes. This means that he gives the denominator of the ratio, formed by the side and the radius, up to 28 decimal places. In a letter to Christoph Clavius dated to the 17th of March 1593,66 he gives, as a decimal fraction, an approximate value of the side of a regular heptagon respectu diametri 2 partium (with respect to a diameter of 2 parts), He writes this as: 8677674823521 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fere 10000000000000 That this is only an approximate value of the denominator of the ratio formed by the side of the heptagon and the radius is indicated by the word fere (about). Although this number cannot be calculated with precision, it is apparently accepted as existing. This
63 In multiplicibus quidem quantitas erit numerus integer; in reliquis vero habitudinibus necesse est quantitatem numerum esse, et partem seu partes; nisi forte quispiam velit etiam ineffabiles esse habitudines, quales sunt magnitudinum incommensurabilium. (Apollonius 1710), p. 32. 64 (Stevin 1585). 65 (Romanus 1593). 66 (Bockstaele 1976) letter 5, p. 101.

123

P. Bockstaele

means that at least implicitly van Roomen agrees with Stevins statement que nombre nest point quantit discontinue.67 The theoretical base for the continuity of number as quantity is given by axiom 16: for every given ratio [a :b] and any given quantity c there exists a quantity x of the same kind , even if it should remain unknown, with [a :b] = [x :c]. If we choose c = 1, then for every ratio [a :b], rational or irrational, there exists a number x , which is to 1, as a is to b. The number x then is the value or denominator of the ratio. With this statement the full arithmetization of the theory of ratios is accomplished. The number x can be considered to be the measure of the quantity a , when b is the unit quantity. Axiom 16 assures also the measurability of quantities. Some ve years after the publication of the Apologia pro Archimede, van Roomen briey mentions his Mathesis Universalis in a book titled Universae mathesis idea.68 He discusses the nature, the eminence and the use of all the mathematical sciences, and gives an overview of the various disciplines of pure and applied mathematics. Among the pure disciplines he makes a distinction between, on the one hand, the more general disciplines, dealing with all kinds of quantities, which are the logistice or art of reckoning and the prima mathesis, and on the other hand the special disciplines, which are arithmetic and geometry. In a very brief chapter devoted to this prima mathesis69 it becomes clear that he now uses this term for what in the Apologia pro Archimede he had called Mathesis Universalis. The prima mathesis, he explains, deals with quantity; its object is quantity, absolutely conceived; its aim is to determine the properties common to all quantities; it is based on its own principles and occupies a rst place among all mathematical sciences. At the end of the chapter van Roomen promises another book on this science, which until now hasnt been treated by any other mathematician. He suggests that his Apologia pro Archimede contains only a small part of what intends to achieve. 7 Van Roomen as commentator on al-Khwarizmis algebra What has become of van Roomens promise? In none of the works published after 1602 is there any trace of a prima mathematica.70 Before 1914, the Leuven University Library possessed some manuscripts of van Roomen, but none of them had any relation to the Mathesis Universalis. There remains one unnished book, described by Valerius Andreas as: In Mahumedis Arabis Algebram, in fol. Opus inperfectum.71 He remarks that a copy of this work is deposited in the library of Leuven University. In 1859, Philippe Gilbert wrote in an article on van Roomen, that he had been looking
67 (Stevin 1585), p. 4. 68 (Romanus 1602). Note that the Universa Mathesis of the title refers to all mathematical disciplines

together, not to the Mathesis Universalis.

69 (Romanus 1602) chapter 4, pp. 2021. 70 However, in his book Mathesis polemica of 1605, (Romanus 1605) one does nd the above-mentioned

quotation from Universae mathesis idea. The rst part of Mathesis polemica, pp. 17110, is indeed identical to pp. 17110 of the Universae mathesis idea. Therefore, it probably is not a new printing. Rather we can assume that unsold pages of the former book were used.
71 (Andreas 1643), p. 16.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

for this copy without success.72 In 1851, Boncompagni, in a study on Leonardo of Pisa, mentioned the existence of a copy in the city library of Douai.73 Only in 1903 did Henri Bosmans nd a copy in the Leuven University Library.74 No other copies have been found. Moreover, some curse seems to rest on this unnished work. The Leuven copy was destroyed during the burning of the library in 1914, as was the case too with the Douai copy in 1940, at the beginning of the Second World War. Yet, as if by a miracle, the text is preserved. Almost the complete text of the Leuven example was copied by Bosmans and is now deposited in the Jesuit archives at Brussels.75 Also a very accurate copy of the Douai example was made for Prince Boncompagni, which now is in the possession of the University Library of Stockholm. It is from this work that we know the second version of van Roomens Mathesis Universalis. Only 72 pages of the work have been printed. There is no title page nor any preliminary matter. The printer is not mentioned. From the Stockholm copy, however, it appears that the book was printed by Georg Fleischmann at Wrzburg. The printing could not have started before 1600, but by that time van Roomen most probably was already working on the book, in which he wanted to publish a commented edition of the Algebra of al-Khwarizmi. The plan did not work out, probably because of the impossible technical demands placed on the printer by van Roomen. The printed fragment starts with van Roomens introduction: In Mahumedis Algebram prolegomena76 (pp. 116). Then follows al-Khwarizmis introduction to his Algebra (6 lines) with comments by van Roomen (pp. 1632). Next come chapter 1 of the Algebra (28 lines) with comments (pp. 3340), and chapter 2 (13 lines), also with long comments (pp. 4072). Whether or not this edition of al-Khwarizmis Algebra is the work promised in the Universae Mathesis Idea is difcult to decide. But we do nd in the preserved fragment his prima mathesis, now better structured than ever before, and also closely linked to algebra. Compared to the rst version in the Apologia pro Archimede, in which van Roomen still leans heavily on Clavius, this text gives a new and quite modern exposition, clearly inuenced by Vite. Van Roomens rst acquaintance with Vites ars analytica dates from after the composition of the Apologia. In a letter to the Bavarian statesman and scholar Johann Georg Herwart, dated to 1598, van Roomen gives the following list of what he calls recently published works of Vite:77

72 (Gilbert 1859). 73 (Boncompagni 1851), pp. 209210. 74 (Bosmans 1906). 75 Archives Jsuites, Fonds Henri BOSMANS, cahier 160, title : A. Romain. In Mahumedis algebram.

Bosmans copy is the rst item of this cahier, which also contains an offprint of the article (Bosmans 1906). Scholars interested in the text may contact the Archives at: Archives Jsuites (BME), Rue A. Fauchille 6, B-1150 Bruxelles, Belgium, Tel.: 02/775 85 73, email: archivbme@jesuites.be, Internet: http://www.jesuite.be/a-propos/archives/.
76 Cf. (Romanus after 1600). 77 (Bockstaele 1992) letter 21c; the corresponding items in the bibliography below are:1: (Vite 1594),

2: (Vite 1595a), 3: (Vite 1595b), 4: (Vite 1591), 5: (Vite 1592), 6: (Vite 1593a), 7: (Vite 1593b), 8: (Vite 15931600).

123

P. Bockstaele

1. Munimen adversus nova cyclometrica (Paris, 1594). 2. Pseudo Mesolabum & alia quaedam adiuncta capitula (Paris, 1595). 3. Ad problema quod omnibus Mathematicis totius orbis construendum proposuit Adrianus Romanus Francisci Vietae Responsum (Paris, 1595). 4. In artem analyticem isagoge, seu algebr nov (Tours, 1591). 5. Effectionum geometricarum canonica recensio (without date, but probably Tours, 1592). 6. Supplementum geometriae (Tours, 1593). 7. Variorum de rebus mathematicis responsorum, Liber VIII (Tours, 1593). 8. Zeteticorum libri quinque. Van Roomen notes that the printing of the last item has begun, but that it has not yet been published ( inchoatum nondum tamen editum), and that he possesses the rst part of it. This work had a peculiar printing history: one part was printed around 1593 at Tours by Jamet Mettayer, the rest in 1600 at Paris by David le Clerc.78 Which of these works were in the possession of van Roomen? He probably owned no. 3, Vites response to a challenge made by van Roomen to all mathematicians of the world. From a letter to Clavius, dated 17 September 1597,79 it appears that van Roomen owned a copy of the Variorum de rebus mathematicis. Apart from the beginning of the Zetetica, he also had the Isagoge and the Supplementum geometriae at his disposal: in his In Mahumedis, he quotes at length from both works. We could not nd any convincing evidence as to whether or not the three remaining books also were in van Roomens library. In In Mahumedis van Roomen also makes extensive use of the Algebra of Guillaume Gosselin80 and the second edition of Cardanos Ars magna.81 Furthermore he refers to the Algebra of Jacques Peletier82 and the Arithmetique of Simon Stevin.83 8 What kind of science is the Ars analytica or algebra? In the Prolegomena to the edition of al-Khwarizmis Algebra, van Roomen says that his intention is to examine what kind of science the algebra or ars analyticais, by looking at its origin and history. First of all he gives a summary of the different names which have been proposed for this science. Then he examines the place of the ars analytica among the other sciences. It deals with quantities, their equality or inequality, their proportion and proportionality. For this reason it belongs to mathematics. Those who have written about algebra considered it to be a part of arithmetic, although it might as well be considered to be part of geometry. Algebraic propositions usually are demonstrated by geometrical constructions, so that algebra should perhaps better
78 See on this (Egmond 1985). 79 (Bockstaele 1976), pp. 126129. 80 (Gosselin 1577). 81 (Cardano 1545). 82 (Peletier 1560). 83 (Stevin 1585).

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

be considered as a part of geometry. Van Roomen then remarks that Mahumed, whom he considers to be the rst discoverer of algebra, thought that algebra was common to numbers and magnitudes. Therefore, he prefers to classify the algebra or analytical science as belonging to the Mathesin prima, which deals with quantity in general. The material object of the ars analytica or algebra is indeed quantity. The formal object, however, is the equality ( aequalitas)of quantities, since only those problems, in which some equation is either explicitly given or can be deduced from the data of the problem, are analytic. In solving problems as part of the ars analytica, one can distinguish between two different methods: the numerosa and the gurata. In the numerosa method one should redo all calculations with every change in the numbers of the data. The gurata method is more generally valid, independent of the actual numbers in the problem. Van Roomen summarizes: the analytica gurata produces rules for solving a given problem, whereas the analytica numerosa only gives rules for a given example. This distinction stems from Vites Isagoge, who uses the terms logistica numerosa and logistica speciosa. Van Roomen further mentions that all writers on algebra have used the numerosa. He himself has tried his hand in a few instances at the gurata, albeit in a rather confused way ( verum satis confuse). Does he refer here to his Apologia pro Archimede? The rst mathematician to use the gurata was Franois Vite, as can be seen in his works, in particular in the Zetetica. According to van Roomen, the aim of algebra is the solution of problems in which an equation of quantities is explicitly or implicitly given, through the solution of this equation. He also points to the usefulness and the value of the algebra, which he considers much more efcient and easier than arithmetic. Van Roomen concludes his Prolegomena with the question Quid analytice? The answer is borrowed from the rst chapter of Vites Isagoge: est Doctrina bene inveniendi in Mathematicis (it is the science of correct discovery in mathematics). He then gives the definition of analysis ascribed to Theon in the words of Vite: taking the thing sought as granted and proceeding by means of what follows to a truth that is uncontested.84 9 Van Roomens Mathesis Universalis, second version After these long prolegomena van Roomen starts with the edition of al-Khwarizmis Liber Algebrae et Almucabula de quaestionibus arithmeticis et geometricis. He begins with what he calls the Praefatio, but which is nothing more than an incipit: IN NOMINE DEI PII ET MISERICORDIS. Incipit Liber Restaurationis & Oppositionis numeri quem edidit Mahumed lius Moysis Algaorizim. That is all the reader gets for the moment. To be able to apply the ars analytica, a profound knowledge of its principles is necessary. These principles are, as for all mathematical sciences, definitions, axioms and postulates. Since al-Khwarizmi does
84 Cf. (Vite 1591) Caput I.

123

P. Bockstaele

not mention any of them, van Roomen feels obliged to add them to his commentary, before going on with the matter. He warns the reader that he will include among the axioms not only statements that are true by themselves, but also theorems which are demonstrated in the mathesis prima. The same goes for the postulates. 9.1 Definitions Six groups or classes of definitions are described. The rst group, de terminis communibus, deals with concepts which are common to all quantities. These are the Definitions 18 from the Apologia pro Archimede, with a few changes and some important additions. The definitions deal with the sum and the difference of quantities, measure, common measure, part and multiple. Added is the definition of aequatio: it is the comparison of two quantities of the same kind, whereby one is considered equal to the other. The definition of ratio from the Apologia, which only applies to rational proportions, is now replaced by the usual definition as can be found in Clavius: A ratio is a sort of relation in respect of size between two quantities of the same kind. The next definitions introduce the four common algebraic operations. The definitions of addition and subtraction make use of the concepts sum and difference, introduced earlier. Addition is the nding of the sum of the given quantities. Subtraction is the nding of the difference by which the larger exceeds the smaller. New and important are the definitions of multiplication and division of quantities. It should be remarked that van Roomen replaces the usual terms multiplicatio and divisio by ductus and partitio. With the aid of accolades he is able to formulate both definitions at once: Ductus } est inventio quantitatis ad quam { unitas ad multiplicantem. Partitio } ita se habeat proposita sicuti { divisor ad unitatem. Multiplication [of two quantities] is the nding of a quantity to which the rst given quantity is as the unit is to the multiplier. Division [of one quantity by another] is the nding of a quantity to which the rst quantity is, as the divisor is to the unit. If a and b are two quantities and e the unit, then both definitions can be rendered as follows The product of the quantities a and b is the quantity p with [a : p ] = [e:b]. The quotient of the quantities a and b is the quantity q with [a :q ] = [b:e]. Ratios can only exist between quantities of the same kind. The unitas from the definition can then only be a quantity of the same kind as a and b. For the same reason, the product p and the quotient q are quantities of the same kind as a and b. Therefore, both operations are basically different from the multiplication and division introduced by Vite in his Isagoge. The definitions of classes 2 and 3 are of a more technical nature. They indicate how in the analytica gurata quantities are to be represented. It is confusing that van Roomen uses the term quantitas both for a quantity and for the sign representing a quantity. This appears already from the very start of class 2: Quantitas vel integra est, vel fracta. Meant is that the representation of a quantity can be either of an integer or of a fractional

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

form. A quantitas integra, what we would call an algebraic monomial, consists of gura and multiplicitate. The gurais the sign which represents the quantity. For this van Roomen uses the letters of the alphabet. The multiplicitas is the coefcient, placed before the gura. It is always a number. When no multiplicitas is given, it is assumed to be 1. The gura may have a gradus scalaris (degree or exponent), indicated by a number within a circle, a notation borrowed from Stevins Arithmetique. In reality the printer has used brackets: (1) rst degree, (2) second degree, etc. When no degree or exponent is given with a gura, it is assumed to be of the rst degree. The gura may involve a ductus, i.e. a product of terms, indicated by inserting the word in. An example of such an integer quantity or algebraic monomial is 2 A(3) in B(2), which stands for 2 A3 B 2 . A quantitas fracta or fractional quantity consists of a numerator and a denominator, separated by a little line. In class 3, the affectiones quantitatum are introduced, these are the + and signs. When it is not known which one of two quantities is the larger, van Roomen85 notes the difference with the sign==between them. The definitions of class 4 deal with the genera of quantities and are clearly inuenced by what Vite writes about the lex homogeneorum or law of homogeneous terms in chapter 3 of the Isagoge. In Vites system every magnitude has its own, well-dened dimension, indicated by a positive integer. Only homogeneous magnitudes, which are magnitudes with the same dimension, can be compared to each other. The product of two quantities, an operation which Vite supposes but does not dene, has a dimension which is the sum of the dimensions of the factors. It is therefore heterogeneous or of a different kind compared to both factors. Vite emphasizes that much of the fogginess and obscurity of the old analysts is due to the neglect of this law.86 Succeeding powers of a magnitude are dened by Vite as magnitudes, which by their own nature ascend or descend proportionally from one kind to another.87 He calls them scalars and gives them names inspired by geometrical objects: side or root, square, cube, squaresquare, squarecube, etc. Van Roomen was probably impressed by Vites warning, and feels that he has to introduce something in the same sense. He starts with a variant from Vites definition of scalars: The genera of a quantity yield quantities which ascend or descend proportionally to another kind ( species) of quantity. They succeed each other as rst, second, third, etc.88 What can this mean in van Roomens system? It is correct that succeeding powers of a quantity ascend or descend proportionally. In view of the given definition of product, it is erroneous, however, that they become quantities of a different kind. Therefore to become a quantity of a different kind cannot refer to the quantity, but only to the sign or algebraic term representing the quantity. The genus of an integer quantity, that is, an algebraic monomial, is determined by its gradus and ductus. If there is only one factor, the degree gives the order
85 Taking over Vites notation as in (Vite 1591) chap. IV, Praeceptum II. 86 (Vite 1591) cap. III. 87 Magnitudines quae ex genere ad genus sua vi proportionaliter adscendunt vel descendunt, vocentur Scalares (Vite 1591) cap. III. 88 Genera quantitatum faciunt quantitates proportionaliter ascendere vel descendere in aliam speciem quantitatis. Genera quantitatum ordine progrediuntur, hoc modo, prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, &c (Romanus after 1600), p. 18.

123

P. Bockstaele

of the genus. If there are more factors, then the order of the genus is the sum of the degrees. With fractional forms, the order of the genus is the difference of the degrees of numerator and denominator. Van Roomen concludes: hinc patet quae quantitates sunt homogenae quae heterogenae: from this it follows which quantities [=algebraic terms] are homogeneous and which are heterogeneous. In the fth group of definitions the various operations with equations are indicated. Adding the same quantity to both sides of the equation is called prosthesis, subtracting the same quantity is aphaeresis, multiplying by the same quantity is pollaplasiasmus, and dividing by the same quantity is parabolismus. Raising both sides of the equation to the same power is called genesis, extracting of both the same root is analysis. Lowering the degree of both sides is called hypobibasmus. Bringing one term from one side to the other with a change of sign is antithesis. The sixth and last group repeats Definitions 2429 of the Apologia regarding the different transformations of a proportionality. 9.2 Axioms There are six classes of axioms. The rst class deals with the whole and the parts. We nd again axioms 12, 13 and 14 from the Apologia, to which the following axiom is added. If one multiplies all parts of a quantity with the same number, then the sum of those products will be the whole quantity multiplied with that number. An analogous rule applies to division by a number. The axioms of class 2 concerning sum and difference of quantities, are generalizations of axioms 17 and 18 of the Apologia. In modern notation: a + [(b + c + d + . . .) a ] = (b + c + d + . . .) a [a (b + c + d + . . .)] = (b + c + d + . . .) The axioms of class 3 have also been taken from the Apologia, with a few additions concerning the product and quotient of quantities. Van Roomen starts with the transitivity of the equivalence relation between quantities. He argues as follows: What is equal to one of two equal quantities is also equal to the other. At the same time, using accolades, he states the axiom: What is greater (less) than one of two equal quantities is also greater (less) than the other. The next axioms determine the relation between the equivalence relation and the four operations with quantities. If a = a and b = b , then also a + b = a + b ( Apologia, axiom 2), a b = a b ( Apologia, axiom 3), ab = a b , and a :b = a :b These are the axioms 3, 4, 5 and 6 from Vites Isagoge, cap. II. Next follow the axioms linking the relations <and> to the four operations. If a = b and c > d , then also a + c > b + d , c a > d b(d > a ) or a c > b d (a > c), ac > bd and a :c < b:d . Van Roomen adds also axioms 8, 10, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Apologia. The axioms of class 4 deal with measure and common measure. Equal quantities measure each other just once. Of unequal quantities, the greater will not measure the less. If the less measures the greater, then it must be more than once. If a quantity measures another quantity, then it measures also all quantities that are equal to it. If

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

a quantity measures another quantity and a part of it, then it will measure the other part of it. If a quantity measures another quantity, but not a part of it, then it will not measure the other part either. If a quantity measures all the parts of another quantity, then it also measures the whole quantity. If a quantity measures a second, the second a third, the third a fourth, etc. then the rst also measures all the subsequent quantities. The axioms of class 5 deal with ratios. The rst axiom states that the equality relation between ratios is transitive. Then follows, formulated as axioms, a summary of theorems 9 and 10 from book V of Clavius Euclid edition.89 However, van Roomen makes three grave mistakes. [a:c] = [b:c] a = b [a:c] > [b:c] a > b [a:c] < [b:c] a < b [a:b] = [a:c] b = c (van Roomen gives a = b) [a:b] > [a:c] b < c (van Roomen gives a > b) [a:b] < [a:c] b > c (van Roomen gives a < b).

The next axiom is transcribed almost verbatim from Vites Isagoge: A ratio is not changed by common multiplication or division of its terms.90 Without mentioning the definition of the duplicate ratio, the triplicate ratio, etc. van Roomen states as an axiom that equal ratios have equal duplicate ratios, triplicate ratios, etc. and vice versa ( Apologia, axiom 21). Also borrowed from Vite is the following axiom: If there are three or four quantities such that the product of the extremes is equal to the square of the mean or the product of the means, then they are proportionals. Conversely, if there are three or four quantities, and the rst is to the second as the second or third to the last, then the product of the extremes will be equal to the product of the means.91 The axioms of the sixth class deal with commensurability and incommensurability. They are theorems taken from Claviuss edition of book X of the Elements.92 If two quantities are commensurable with a common third, then they are commensurable. If only one of the two is commensurable with the third, then the two are incommensurable. If two quantities are commensurable, and one of them is commensurable with a third, then so is the other quantity. If one of them is incommensurable with the third, then this is also the case with the other quantity. If two commensurable quantities are one-to-one commensurable (incommensurable) with two other quantities, then the last two quantities will be commensurable (incommensurable). The sum of two commensurable (incommensurable) quantities is commensurable (incommensurable) with each of the parts. If a quantity is commensurable (incommensurable) with a part of it, then this part and the whole will be commensurable (incommensurable) with the other part. The last axiom is a transposition to quantities of Euclids algorism determining the greatest common divisor of two numbers. If the smaller of two unequal quantities is continuously subtracted in turn from the larger, then, when both quantities are
89 (Euclid 1591), vol. 1, pp. 267268. 90 (Vite 1591), cap. II, nr. 12. 91 (Vite 1591), cap. II, nrs. 15 and 16. 92 (Euclid 1591), vol. 2, pp. 116118.

123

P. Bockstaele

commensurable, a remaining quantity will nally measure the preceding one; if they are incommensurable, this will never happen.93 9.3 Postulates Here van Roomen discusses the rules for calculation with algebraic terms. For the rst time he makes a clear distinction between a quantity and its representation by means of a symbol. He calls the latter the quantitas gurata. In the rst group of postulates van Roomen denes the rules for writing down the four fundamental operations with quantitates guratae or algebraic terms. Every term is supposed to have its own affectio, that is one of the signs + or . The sum of two terms is indicated by writing them next to each other, each with its own sign. For the difference one writes both terms next each other, the minuend with its own sign, and the subtrahend with a sign opposite to its own. For a product of two terms, or of a number with a term, one writes both next to each other, each with its own sign, and between them the word in. Division is indicated by writing one term on top of the other, both with their sign, and between them a little line. The postulates of the second class show how to add terms with an equal basis and the same degree, or how to multiply and divide terms with an equal basis. The sign rule is explicitly stated. 9.4 Theorems In part 4 of the principia of the algebra, van Roomen proves the validity of a number of algebraic formulas, or rather identities. Every identity is rst stated by means of words. In the demonstrations, the quantities are represented by capitals. The formulas are ordered in classes depending on the degree of the terms. Class 1, with terms of the rst degree, contains three theorems. 1.1. Let A, B, C, D, E be quantities of the same degree. Then 2 A + [( B + C + D + E ) A] = ( A + B + C + D + E ) and 2 A [ A ( B + C + D + E )] = ( A + B + C + D + E ) Van Roomen apparently had not noticed that, except for a small detail, this is identical with the axioms of class 2. 1.2. ( A + B ) + ( A B ) = 2 A . 1.3. ( A + B ) ( A B ) = 2 B . The theorems of the remaining classes are: 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. ( A + B )2 = ( A B )2 + 4 AB = A2 + B 2 + 2 AB . A2 + B 2 = ( A B )2 + 2AB = 1/2[( A + B )2 + ( A B )2 ]. A2 B 2 = ( A + B )( A B ). A2 + B 2 + AB = ( A + 1/2 B )2 + 3/4 B 2 .

93 (Euclid 1591) vol. 2, p. 104.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 5.1. 6.1.

( A + B )3 = A3 + B 3 + 3 AB ( A + B ). 4( A3 + B 3 ) = ( A + B )3 + 3( A + B )( A B )2 . A3 B 3 = ( A B )3 + 3( A B ) AB = 1/4( A B )3 + 3[1/2( A + B )]2 ( A B ). 2( A + B )( A2 + B 2 ) = ( A + B )3 + ( A B )( A2 B 2 ). ( A + B )4 = ( A B )4 + 8( AB 3 + A3 B ). ( A + B )4 + ( A B )4 = 2( A4 + B 4 ) + 12 A2 B 2 . ( A2 + B 2 )2 = [( A + B )( A B )]2 + (2 AB )2 ( A + B )5 + ( A B )5 = 2 A5 + 10 AB 4 + 20 A3 B 2 . ( A3 + B 3 )2 = ( A3 B 3 )2 + 4( AB )3 .

The explicit demand of the same degree for theorem 1.1 is also to be found in the statement of the other theorems. This shows that van Roomen does not completely understand the full meaning of his own definition of product. In his algebraic system quantities have no degree, but the algebraic terms representing them do. Vites warning concerning the law of homogeneity has apparently still some effect. In the demonstrations of the theorems van Roomen repeatedly uses the development of ( A + B )n with n equal to 3 or 4. He considers the formula for the binomium ( A + B )n = An + n An1 B + . . . + B n to be well known. That he himself was quite familiar with it, appears from his In Mahumedis, where he lists the binomial coefcients for n = 2, 3, 4, . . . . up to 69.94 As an example of van Roomens approach we give here the proof of formula 3.4. For two quantities of the same degree, the following two expressions are equal: 1. The double product of the sum of the quantities and the sum of their squares. 2. The cube of the sum of the quantities, augmented with the product of their difference and the difference of their squares. Explanation. Let A and B be two quantities, of which A is the greater, B the less. It is asked to prove the equality in the proposition. Proof The difference of the quantities is AB The difference of their squares is A(2) B (2) The product of both is A(3) + B (3) A(2) in B B (2) in A The cube of their sum is A(3) + B (3) + 3 A(2) in B + 3 B (2) in A Their sum is 2 A(3) + 2 B (3) + 2 A(2) in B + 2 B (2) in A The sum of the given quantities is A+B The sum of their squares is A (2 ) + B (2 ) The product of this is A(3) + B (3) + A(2) in B + B (2) in A Take the double of it, it is 2 A(3) + 2 B (3) + 2 A(2) in B + 2 B (2) in A Equal to the foregoing sum. Quod erat demonstrandum. According to the title, the fth and nal part of the principles of algebra deals with the comparison of quantities of which the ratio is given in numbers. It exists of only one page and contains three, rather unexpected theorems. Theorem 1 states that if the ratio of two quantities, the rst to the second, is equal to the ratio of a number to unit, then the product of this number with the second quantity is equal to the rst, and the
94 (Romanus after 1600), pp. 5663.

123

P. Bockstaele

rst quantity divided by this number is equal to the second quantity. This is, with the letters used by van Roomen: if [ A: B ] = [C :1], then is A = C in B and B = A / C . The two remaining theorems deal with a quantity that divides another, and with their quotient. It is unclear what exactly is meant by quantity B divides quantity A. Probably it means that A and B are commensurable. Theorem 2 states nothing more than theorem 1: if of two quantities A and B , the second divides the rst, then the rst divided by quotient C yields again the second. The last theorem is rather unexpected: If quantity B divides quantity A and also quantity A B , then the rst quotient is exactly one unit greater than the second. From the proofs of the theorems it appears that van Roomen understands by division the divisio of axiom 20 of the Apologia and not the partitio from the In Mahumedis.

10 The Mathesis Universalis after van Roomen The analytica gurata or symbolic algebra of van Roomens In Mahumedis is a further elaboration of the Mathesis Universalis of the Apologia pro Archimede.In the mean time, van Roomen became familiar with Vites Isagoge and borrowed several things from it, without, however, completely taking over its system. The elements to which the algebra is applied are not specied quantities. In the system the usual algebraic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division are valid. The definition of these last two operations presupposes the choice of a unit element. Both the product and the quotient of quantities yield a quantity of the same kind. As a consequence, operations with quantities become a faithful representation of the operations with numbers. In modern terms: the domain of quantities is isomorphic to the semield R+ of positive real numbers. The algebraic notation in the In Mahumedis has a very modern sound to it. It represents an important step forward, compared to the system of Vite, and even heralds the notations that later were introduced by Descartes. What inuence did the Mathesis Universalis of van Roomens Apologia pro Archimede and the analytica gurata of his In Mahumedis have on the development of algebra? The number of preserved copies of the rst work shows that it was quite well disseminated. Very soon after its publication, the Mathesis Universalis was already noted by others, as shown by a letter written by Johann Georg Brengger, a physician working in Kaufbeuren, to Herwart. Herwart had lent some books to Brengger, among which also van Roomens In Archimedis. Brengger returned the books by the end of December 1597, together with a letter, in which he writes:95 Regarding the book of Adrianus Romanus, I like it very well; in particular the lecture of chapters 6 and 7 was very pleasing, where he writes on the discovery, the examination and the development of the Scientia mathematica generalis or
95 Betreffend da Adriani Romani buch gfellt mir desselbe gar wol, sonderlich aber ist mir das angenem zu lesen gewesen was er cap. 6 & 7 schreybt de inventione seu investigatione & constitutione Scientiae Mathematicae generalis, seu primae Matheses. Item was er cap. 9. de Methodo Arithmeticae practicae tractiert sein meins bednken gar feine sachen (Munich, University Library, Ms. 2 692, p. 591).

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

prima Mathesis. Also what he speaks of in chapter 9 concerning the Methodus Arithmeticae practicae universalis are in my view exquisite matters. The unnished In Mahumedis was a rarity from the start. Van Roomen himself took care that it was somewhat distributed. The copy preserved in Douai was a gift of the author to the Jesuit college of that city. Possibly van Roomen has also mentioned his ideas on algebra in letters or private communications. Traces of this can be found in a letter written in Prague and addressed to Kepler. Apparently, it is an answer to questions regarding the determination of sides of regular polygons. Van Roomen discusses the equations for calculating the sides of a regular 7-, 9-, 11- and 13-gon, inscribed in a circle with radius 1. To indicate the powers of the root, he uses the notation of his In Mahumedis. Kepler writes extensively on the equation of the heptagon in his Harmonices Mundi,96 but uses his own notation. He points out the impossibility of a geometrical solution, but adds that someone has informed him that the sides of all regular polygons can be determined algebraically.97 Possibly this refers to van Roomen. Algebra was a subject of conversation when van Roomen was at Krakow, traveling from Wrzburg to Zamo, as a guest of the young Jan Broek. They met each other for the rst time at the end of August 1611. On August 26 they visited the library of the University together. The rst thing that van Roomen asked was whether or not they had a copy of the work of Diophantus. Two days later they met Stanislas Jakobejus (15401612), professor of mathematics and astronomy. Broek noted in his journal that their conversation touched upon the + and signs.98 At the start of 1612, in a letter to van Roomen in Zamo, Broek gives an overview of his advances in mathematics. In algebra he has particular problems with the different notations of the numeri gurati, meaning the powers of the root.99 Also in later writings Broek shows traces of van Roomens inuence. The idea of a science dealing with the principles and properties common to all multitudes and magnitudes can be found, this time under the name mathematica generalis, in the work of J. H. Alsted Methodus admirandorum mathematicorum100 of 1613. He mentions Pereira and Dasypodius, but not van Roomen.101 The name Mathesis Universalis introduced by van Roomen will only resurface again years later with Descartes unnished Regulae ad directionem ingenii.102 Descartes usually did not mention his sources. He always maintained that his algebra was not in any way inuenced by the work of modern authors. This sounds not very convincing, and there are some indications that he had found some inspiration in van Roomens In Archimedis circuli
96 (Kepler 1619), pp. 3435. 97 Objiciat hic mihi aliquis doctrinam Analyticam, ab Arabe Gebri denominatam Algebram, Italico

vocabulo Cossam: videtur enim in ea determinari posse omnis generis Polygonorum latera (Kepler 1619), p. 34.
98 (Bockstaele 1963), p. 38. 99 (Bockstaele 1976) letter 41, pp. 298299. 100 (Alsted 1613). 101 (Crapulli 1969), pp. 129130. 102 (Descartes 19641974a).

123

P. Bockstaele

dimensionem expositio et analysis. He had plenty of opportunities to put his hand on van Roomens work. In the spring of 1618, the young Descartes volunteered in Breda to join the army of Maurice of Nassau. While at Breda, he met the 7-year-old Isaac Beeckman (15881637), who discussed various mathematical and physical problems with him. At the end of April 1619, Descartes left Holland and traveled via Denmark to Germany. In the fall and winter of 16191620, he stayed in the neighborhood of Ulm. During his stay in Breda, Descartes had already started to work on what he called an unbelievably ambitious project. On 26 March 1619, he wrote his friend Beeckman that he was working on a completely new science, which would solve all problems involving any kind of quantities, continuous as well as discrete.103 By 1620, this science was taking a clear shape in his mind. After some years of wandering around, in 1628 Descartes returned to Holland to settle down. He renewed contact with Beeckman, who noted in his journal on 8 October 1628 that Descartes was convinced that in arithmetic and geometry there was nothing left to be done, as over the last nine years his mind had reached the highest possible level of knowledge. He promised to send him his algebra, which he called perfect, and which would lead to the perfection of geometry and even of all human knowledge.104 Indeed, in those years, Descartes, in his Regulae, had further worked out the details of the ambitious project he had started at Breda. In the fourth rule, he describes his impressions when he started to concentrate on mathematics. He had read most works on arithmetic and geometry, but none of them could give him full satisfaction. What they had to offer was more a bunch of incidental discoveries, than a system of truths discovered as the result of a solid method. He suspected that the ancient mathematicians had known such a method, a kind of mathematics quite different from the vulgar one of his own time. Descartes remarks (without naming them) that in his own days, there have been some very ingenious human beings, who have tried to revive this art. For it seems to be nothing other than that art which they call by the barbaric name algebra, if only it could be so freed from the multiple numbers and from the inexplicable gures by which it is overwhelmed that it would no longer lack that greatest perspicuity and facility which we suppose that there should be in the true mathematics.105 All this led Descartes to ask why not only arithmetic and geometry, but also astronomy, optics, mechanics and several other sciences are considered parts of mathematics. Considering this more attentively, he realized, that only all those things are referred to mathematics in which some order ( ordo) or measure ( mensura) is examined, and that it is irrelevant whether such measures were to be sought in numbers or in gures or in stars or in sounds or in any other object whatever.106 This shows a remarkable resemblance with the way according to which van Roomen characterized mathematics in his Universae mathesis idea:
103 Scientiam penitus novam tradere cupio, qu generaliter solvi possint quaestiones omnes quae in quolibet genere quantitatis, tm continuae qum discretae, possint proponi. (Beeckman 1939), vol. 4, p. 59. 104 (Beeckman 1939), vol. 3, p. 94. 105 (Descartes 1998), p. 95. 106 (Descartes 1998), p. 95.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis

The object of the whole of mathematics is quantity. Although the mathematician, apart from quantity, also considers other accidents such as movement, weight, tone, rays etc. or also substances, such as heaven, earth, elds, mountains, etc. or even articial things such as casks, spheres, etc., he still considers them not as such, but as quanta. The forma of mathematics consists of order and method. Order goes from the best known to the least known. The method is always demonstrative.107 Descartes concludes that there must be some general science which could explain all that which can be investigated concerning order and measure, irrespective of any particular matter. He judges that this science should be designated, not with a farfetched word, but by an already venerable term with a received usage, as Mathesis Universalis, since it contains all that by virtue of which the other sciences are also called parts of mathematics.108 The fact that Descartes presents this term as already venerable and widely accepted suggests that he tries to hide his real sources. A concrete explanation of his algebra can be found in rules 13 and following. According to Descartes, the chief part of human activity consists in nothing other than reducing problems to the point where there seems to be a clear equality between that which is sought and something which is known. Nothing can be reduced to such an equality except what admits more and less, and all of this is covered by the term magnitude. This means that algebra deals exclusively with magnitude in general. To be able to have a concrete picture of this, and in order not only to use the pure intellect, but also the intellect complemented by the imagination, it is important to realize that everything which can be said of magnitudes in general is also valid for any kind of magnitude in particular. This means that it is advantageous to formulate everything that is valid for magnitudes in general, by referring to the species of magnitudes, which can be most easily and most clearly imagined.109 In Descartes judgment, these are rectangular surfaces and straight lines. Let us presuppose that a unit is selected, thought to be either a straight line or the square built on it. Each magnitude can now be represented as a straight line, as a rectangle having this line and the unit as its sides, or as whatever rectangle with equal area. As an aid to memory, Descartes proposes to designate the magnitudes by very concise symbols, for which he uses the letters of the alphabet. A number before the symbol of the magnitude (the coefcient) indicates how many of them there are, whereas a number after it (the exponent) indicates the degree.110 Except for the circle or the brackets surrounding the exponent, this corresponds with van Roomens notations in his In Mahumedis. Later, in his Gomtrie, Descartes would use for the exponents the now usual superscript. In rule 18, On the operations of geometrical algebra (De operationibus algebrae geometricae), the four common algebraic operations are introduced. Magnitudes are thought of as straight lines. Neither sum nor difference of lines requires any further
107 (Romanus 1602), pp. 56. 108 (Descartes 1998), p. 97. 109 (Descartes 1998), pp. 179, 181. 110 (Descartes 1998), p. 197.

123

P. Bockstaele

explanation. The product of two lines a and b is the rectangle with a and b as sides. To represent the product as a line, one constructs an equal rectangle with the unit e as one of the sides. The other side is the product of a and b. In order to divide a by b, the rectangle with a and the unit e as sides is transformed into an equal rectangle with b as side. The other side is the quotient. The construction of the product of a and b is nothing other than nding a line p that satises ab = pe, which is equivalent to [a : p ] = [e:b]. According to the given definition, the quotient q of a by b corresponds to ae = qb, i.e., [a :q ] = [b:e]. Eventually, in his Gomtrie, Descartes abandons the detour of using rectangles, and denes both operations by means of proportions, as van Roomen had already done in his In Mahumedis. Yet, there is nothing to suggest that Descartes knew of this work.

References
Alsted, Johann Heinrich. 1613. Methodus admirandorum mathematicorum complectens novem libros matheseos universae, Herborn. Andreas, Valerius. 1643. Bibliotheca Belgica: De Belgis vita scriptisque claris. Leuven: Jacob Zegers. Apollonius. 1566. Conicorum libri priores quattuor, una cum Pappi Alexandrini lemmatibus et commentariis Eutocii Ascalonitae, Sereni Antissensis philosophi libri de sectione cylindri et coni nunc primum in lucem editi. Quae omnia nuper Federicus Commandinus Urbinas mendis quamplurimis expurgata e Graeco convertit, et commentariis illustravit (tr. annot. ed. F. Commandino), 2 vols. Bologna: Ex ofcina Alexandri Benatii. Apollonius. 1710. Conicorum libri octo, et Sereni. Antissensis De Sectione Cylindri et coni libri duo (also Pappus Lemmata and Eutocius Commentaries, ed. Edm. Halley, Oxford Archimedes. 1558. Opera non nulla (tr. ed. F. Commandino). Venice: apud P. Manutium. Archimedes. The Works of Archimedes, ed. intr. tr. Thomas L. Heath, reprint of ed. 1897, with suppl.: the method of 1912. New York: Dover. Aristotle. 1952. The Works of Aristotle. Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Beeckman, Isaac. 19391953. Journal tenu par Isaac Beeckman de 1604 1634, ed. annot. introd. C. de Waard, 4 vols. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Benedetti, Giovanni Battista. 1585. Io Baptistae Benedicti Patritii Veneti philosophi diversarum speculationum mathematicarum et physicarum liber. Turin: apud Haeredem Nicolai Bevilaquae. Bockstaele, Paul. 1963. Adriaan van Roomen en Polen : Zijn onderwijs te Zamosz en zijn invloed op Jan Broszek. Mededeelingen Kon. Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgi, Klasse der Wetenschappen, 25, 8. Bockstaele, Paul. 1976. The correspondence of Adriaan van Roomen. Lias 3: 85129, 249299. Bockstaele, Paul. 1992. The correspondence of Adriaan van Roomen: corrections and additions, 15941615. Lias 19: 320. Bosmans, Henri. 1906. Le fragment du commentaire dAdrien Romain sur lAlgbre de Mahumed ben Musa el-Chowrezm. Annales de la Socit scientifique de Bruxelles 30: 267287. Boncompagni, Baldassare. 185152. Della vita e delle opere di Leonardo Pisano, matematico del secolo decimoterze. Atti dell Academia Pontifica de Nuovi Lincei 5: 591, 208246. Cardano, Girolamo. 1545. Artis magnae sive de regulis algebraicis liber unus. Nrnberg: Johann Petraeus. Crapulli, Giovanni. 1969. Mathesis Universalis; genesi di una idea nel XVI secolo. Rome: Edizioni dellAteneo. Descartes, Ren. 196474. Regulae ad directionem ingenii. In (Descartes 196474b), vol. 10, 359469. Descartes, Ren. 196474. Oeuvres de Descartes nouvelle prsentation, eds. Adam, Charles, & Tannery, Paul, Paris, 18971913, 12 vols, Paris: Vrin. Descartes, Ren. 1998. Regulae ad directionem ingenii : Rules for the direction of the natural intelligence. In Studies in the history of ideas in the Low Countries, ed. tr. George Hefferman (bilingual edition), 3. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Diophantus. 1575. Rerum arithmeticarum libri sex, quorum duo adjecta habent scholia Maximi Planudis, item liber de numeris polygonis seu multangulis, ed. G. Xylander. (W. Holzmann), Basel.

123

Adriaan van Roomen and the Mathesis Universalis Egmond, Warren van. 1985. A catalog of Vites printed and manuscript works. In Mathemata: Festschrift fr Helmuth Gericke, eds. Menso Folkerts, Uta Lindgren, 59396. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Euclid. 1533. Eukleidou stoicheioon. Euclidis Elementorum XV ex Theonis coloquiis. Primum ejus librum commentarium Procli libri IV Graece. Adiecta praefatiuncula in qua de disciplinis mathematicis nonnihil, ed. S. Grynaeus, Basel. Euclid. 1591. Euclidis elementorum libri XV accessit XVI de solidorum regularium cuiuslibet intra quodlibet comparatione. Omnes perspicuis demonstrationibus, accuratisque scholiis illustrati, ac multarum rerum accessione locupletati. Nunc tertio editi, summaque diligentia recogniti, atque emendati, ed. Chr. Clavius, 2 vols. Cologne: Expensis Ioh. Baptistae Ciotti. Euclid. 1956. The thirteen books of Euclids Elements (tr. intr. comm. Thomas L. Heath; reprint of ed. 1926), 3 vols. New York: Dover. Gemma Frisius, Reiner. 1581. Arithmeticae Practicae methodus facilis, per Gemmam Frisium, Medicum et Mathematicum conscripta, iam recens ab Auctore pluribus locis aucta et recognita. In eandem Ioannis Steinii et Jacobi Peletarii Annotationes (based on an edition Cologne 1571). Antwerp: J. van der Loo, P. van Tongeren. Gilbert, Philippe. 1859. Notice sur le mathmaticien Louvaniste Adrianus Romanus, professeur lancienne Universit de Louvain. Revue Catholique 17: 277286, 394409. Gosselin, G. 1577. De arte magna seu de occulta parte numerorum quae et algebra et almucabala vulgo dicitur, libri quattuor. In quibus explicantur aequationes Diophanti, regulae quantitatis simplicis et quantitatis surdae. Paris: Apud Aegidium Beys. Kepler, Johannes. 1619. Harmonices mundi libri V. Linz: Ioannes Plancus. Maurolico, Franceso. 1575. Arithmetica Peletier du Mans, Jacques. 1560. De occulta parte numerorum, quam Algebram vocant, libri duo. Paris: Guillaume Cavellat. Pereira, Benito. 1576. De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis et affectionibus libri quindecim. Rome: apud Franciscum et Bartholomaeum Tosium. Proclus. 1533. Commentariorum Procli editio prima quae Simonis Grynaei opera addita est Euclidis elementis graece editis, ed. S. Grynaeus, Basel. Proclus. 1560. In primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commentariorum ad universam mathematicam disciplinam principium eruditionis tradentium libri III, ed. F. Barozzi, Padua. Proclus. 1970. A commentary on the rst book of Euclids Elements tr. intr. Glenn R. Morrow. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Romanus, Adrianus. 1593. Ideae mathematicae pars prima sive methodus polygonorum qua laterum, perimetrorum et arearum cujuscunque polygoni investigandorum ratio exactissima et certissima una cum circuli quadratura continetur. Antwerp. Romanus, Adrianus. 1597. In Archimedis circuli dimensionem expositio et analysis: Apologia pro Archimede ad Clariss. virum Josephum Scaligerum: Exercitationes cyclicae contra Iosephum Scaligerum, Orontium Finaeum et Raymarum Ursum, in decem dialogos distinctae. Wrzburg. Romanus, Adrianus. After 1600. In Mahumedis arabis algebram prolegomena. Wrzburg: Georg Fleischmann, c. 1602 (At present, no extant copies of this item are known, see section 7, esp footnote 75). Romanus, Adrianus. 1602. Universae mathesis idea, qua mathematicae universim sumptae natura, praestantia, usus et distributio brevissime proponuntur. Wrzburg: Georg Fleischmann. Romanus, Adrianus. 1605. Mathesis Polemica. Frankfurt: Laevinus Hulsius. Scaliger, Joseph. 1594. Cyclometrica elementa duo. Leiden: Ex ofcina Plantiniana, apud Franciscum Raphelengium. Scaliger, Joseph. 1594. Mesolabium ad nobiles academiae Lugdunensis Batavorum Curatores et magnices eiusdem civitatis consules. Leiden: Ex ofcina Plantiniana, apud Franciscum Raphelengium. Scaliger, Joseph. 1594. Appendix ad cyclometrica sua: in qua asseritur quadratio circuli, contra oblationes quorundam, et castigantur quaedam errata in demonstrationibus cyclometricis. Leiden: Ex ofcina Plantiniana, apud Franciscum Raphelengium. Stevin, Simon. 1585. LArithmetique : aussi lalgbre les quatre premiers livres dAlgebre de Diophante dAlexandrie un livre particulier de la Pratique darithmetique Et une traict des Incommensurables grandeurs: avec lexplication du Dixiesme Livre dEuclide. Leiden: Christophe Plantin. Vite, Franois. 1591. In artem analyticen isagoge: seorsim excussa ab opere restitutae mathematicae analyseos seu algebra nova. Tours: Jamet Mettayer. Vite, Franois. 1592. Effectionum geometricarum canonica recensio, Tours.

123

P. Bockstaele Vite, Franois. 1593. Supplementum geometriae : ex opere restitutae mathematicae analyseos seu algebra nova. Tours: Jamet Mettayer. Vite, Franois. 1593. Variorum de rebus mathematicis responsorum liber VIII cuius praecipua capita sunt de duplicatione cubi et quadratione circuli. Tours: J. Mettayer. Vite, Franois. 15931600. Zeteticorum libri quinque. Tours: Jamet Mettayer/David le Clerc. Vite, Franois. 1594. Munimen adversus nova cyclometrica, Paris. Vite, Franois. 1595. Pseudo-Mesolabum & alia quaedam adiuncta, Paris. Vite, Franois. 1595. Ad problema quod omnibus mathematicis totius orbis construendum proposuit Adrianus Romanus Responsum. Paris.

123