The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of Euclid's elements (Vol. 1 of 2) : $b To which are added, A history of the restoration of Platonic theology, by the latter Platonists: And a translation from the Greek of Proclus's Theological elements
Plato · en
2. If geometry, therefore, be both valuable for its own sake, and
for its subserviency to the most exalted contemplations, there can
be no doubt but that the great perfection to which this science was
brought by the Greeks, was entirely owing to their deep conviction
of this important truth. Euclid, we are informed by Proclus, in
this work, was of the Platonic sect; and Archimedes is reported, by
Plutarch, in his Life of Marcellus, to have possessed such elevated
sentiments of the intrinsic dignity of geometry, that he considered
it perverted and degraded, when subservient to mechanical operations;
though, at the request of king Hiero, he fabricated such admirable
engines for the defence of Syracuse. From this source alone, the great
accuracy and elegance of their demonstrations was derived, which have
been so deservedly applauded by the greatest modern mathematicians,
and the warmest advocates for the farrago of algebraic calculation.
Algebra, indeed, or as it is called, _specious analysis_, is the
modern substitute for the perfect method adopted by the ancients in
geometrical demonstrations; and this solely, because it is capable of
being applied with greater facility to the common purposes of life.
Hence, hypotheses have been eagerly admitted in geometry, which the
ancients would have blushed to own: I mean the multiplications and
divisions of lines and spaces as if they were numbers, and considering
geometry and arithmetic as sciences perfectly the same. But we have
fortunately the testimony of the first mathematicians among the moderns
against the unlawfulness of this ungeometrical invasion. And to begin
with the great sir Isaac Newton, in his Universal Arithmetic[29]:
“Equations (says he) are expressions of arithmetical computation, and
properly have no place in geometry, except so far as quantities truly
geometrical (that is, lines, surfaces, solids, and proportions), may
be said to be some equal to others. _Multiplications, divisions,
and such sort of computations, are newly received into geometry, and
that unwarily, and contrary to the first design of this science._
For whoever considers the construction of problems by a right-line and
a circle, found out by the first geometricians, will easily perceive
that geometry was invented that we might expeditiously avoid, by
drawing lines, the _tediousness of computation_. _Therefore,
these two sciences ought not to be confounded._ The ancients so
industriously distinguished them from one another, that they never
introduced arithmetical terms into geometry. _And the moderns, by
confounding both, have lost the simplicity in which all the elegancy
of geometry consists._” And in another part[30] of the same work he
observes, that “_the modern geometers are too fond of the speculation
of equations_.” To this very high authority we may add that of Dr.
Halley, in the preface to his translation of Apollonius de Sectione
Rationis; for which work he conceived so great an esteem, that he was