the quantity or exponent of a ratio (according as Eutochius in his Comment. on prop. 4, book 2, of Arch. de Sph. et Cyl. and the moderns explain that term) is the number which multiplied into the consequent term of a ratio produces the antecedent, or which is the same thing, the number which arises by dividing the antecedent by the consequent; but there are many ratios such, that no number can arise from the division of the antecedent by the consequent; ex. gr. the ratio which the diameter of a square has to the side of it; and the ratio which the circumference of a circle has to its diameter, and such like. Besides, that there is not the least mention made of this definition in the writings of Euclid, Archimedes, Apollonius, or other ancients, though they frequently make use of compound ratio; and in this 23d prop. of the 6th book, where compound ratio is first mentioned, there is not one word which can relate to this definition, though here, if in any place, it was necessary to be brought in; but the right definition is expressly cited in these words: "But the ratio of K to M is compounded of the ratio of K to L, and of the ratio of L to M." This definition therefore of Theon is quite useless and absurd for that Theon brought it into the Elements can scarce be doubted; as it is to be found in his commentary upon Ptolemy's Meyaλn Zuvražis, page 62, where he also gives a childish explication of it, as agreeing only to such ratios as can be expressed by numbers; and from this place the definition and explication have been exactly copied and prefixed to the definitions of the 6th book, as appears from Hervagius's edition: but Zambertus and Commandine, in their Latin translations, subjoin the same to these definitions. Neither Campanus, nor, as it seems, the Arabic manuscripts, from which he made his translation, have this definition. Clavius, in his observations upon it, rightly judges, that the definition of compound ratio might have been made after the same manner in which the definitions of duplicate and triplicate ratio are given; viz. "That as in several magnitudes that are continual proportionals, Euclid named the ratio of the first to the third, the duplicate ratio of the first to the second, and the ratio of the first to the fourth, the triplicate ratio of the first to the second, that is, the ratio compounded of two or three intermediate ratios that are equal to one another, and so on; so, in like manner, if there be several magnitudes of the same kind, following one another, which are not continual proportionals, the first is said to have to the last the ratio compounded of all the intermediate ratios-only for this reason, that these intermediate ratios are interposed betwixt the two extremes, viz. the first and last magnitudes; even as, in the 10th definition of the 5th book, the ratio of the first to the third was called the duplicate ratio, merely upon account of two ratios being interposed betwixt the extremes, that are equal to one another: so that there is no difference betwixt this compounding of ratios, and the duplication or triplication of them which are defined in the 5th book, but that in the duplication, triplication, &c. of ratios, all the interposed ratios are equal to one another; whereas, in the compounding of ratios, it is not necessary that the intermediate ratios should be equal to one another."

Also Mr. Edmund Scarburgh, in his English translation of the first six books, page 238, 266, expressly affirms, that the 5th definition of the 6th book is supposititious, and that the true definition of compound ratio is contained in the 10th definition of the 5th book, viz. the definition of duplicate ratio, or to be understood from it, to wit, in the same manner as Clavius has explained it in the preceding citation. Yet these, and the rest of the moderns, do notwithstanding retain this 5th def. of the 6th book, and illustrate and explain it by long commentaries, when they ought rather to have taken it quite away from the Elements.

For, by comparing def. 5, book 6, with prop. 5, book 8, it will clearly appear that this definition has been put into the Elements in place of the right one, which has been taken out of them: because, in prop. 5, book 8, it is demonstrated that the plane number of which the sides are C, D has to the plane number of which the sides are E, Z (see Hervagius's or Gregory's edition,) the ratio which is compounded of the ratios of their sides; that is, of the ratios of C to E, and D to Z: and, by def. 5, book 6, and the explication given of it by all the commentators, the ratio which is compounded of the ratios of C to E, and D to Z, is the ratio of the product made by the multiplication of the antecedents, C, D, to the product by the consequents E, Z, that is, the ratio of the plane number of which the sides are C, D to the plane number of which the sides are E, Z. Wherefore the proposition which is the 5th def. of book 6, is the very same with the 5th prop. of book 8, and therefore it ought necessarily to be cancelled in one of these places; because it is absurd that the same proposition should stand as a definition in one place of the Elements, and be demonstrated in another place of them. Now, there is no doubt that prop. 5, book 8, should have a place in the Elements, as the same thing is demonstrated in it concerning plane numbers, which is demonstrated in prop. 23, book 6, of equiangular parallelograms; wherefore def. 5, book 6, ought not to be in the Elements. And from this it is evident that this definition is not Euclid's but Theon's, or some other unskilful geometer's.

But nobody, as far as I know, has hitherto shown the true use of compound ratio, or for what purpose it has been introduced into geometry for every proposition in which compound ratio is made use of, may without it be both enunciated and demonstrated. Now the use of compound ratio consists wholly in this, that by means of it circumlocutions may be avoided, and thereby propositions may be more briefly either enunciated or demonstrated, or both may be done for instance, if this 23d proposition of the sixth book were to be enunciated, without mentioning compound ratio, it might be done as follows. If two parallelograms be equiangular, and if as a side of the first to a side of the second, so any assumed straight line be made to a second straight line: and as the other side of the first to the other side of the second, so the second straight line be made a third. The first parallelogram is to the second, as the first straight line to the third. And the demonstration would be exactly the same as we now have it. But the ancient geometers, when they observed this enunciation could be made shorter, by giving a name to the

ratio which the first straight line has to the last, by which name the intermediate ratios might likewise be signified, of the first to the second, and of the second to the third, and so on, if there were more of them, they called this ratio of the first to the last the ratio compounded of the ratios of the first to the second, and of the second to the third straight line: that is, in the present example, of the ratios which are the same with the ratios of the sides, and by this they expressed the proposition more briefly, thus: if there be two equiangular parallelograms, they have to one another the ratio which is the same with that which is compounded of ratios that are the same with the ratios of the sides. Which is shorter than the preceding enunciation, but has precisely the same meaning. Or yet shorter thus: equiangular parallelograms have to one another the ratio which is the same with that which is compounded of the ratios of their sides. And these two enunciations, the first especially, agree to the demonstration which is now in the Greek. The proposition may be more briefly demonstrated, as Candalla does, thus: let ABCD, CEFG, be two equiangular parallelograms, and complete the parallelogram CDHG, then, because there are three parallelograms AC, CH, CF, the first AC (by the definition of compound ratio) has to the third CF, the ratio which is compounded of the ratio of the first AC to the A second CH, and of the ratio of CH to the third CF; but the parallelogram AC is to the parallelogram CH, as the straight line BC to CG; and the parallelogram CH is to CF, as the straight line CD is to CE: therefore the parallelogram AC has to CF the ratio which is compounded of ratios that are the same with the ratios of the sides. And to this demonstration agrees the enunciation which is at present in the text, viz. equiangular parallelograms have to one another the ratio which is compounded of the ratios of the sides; for the vulgar reading, "which is compounded of their sides," is absurd. But in this edition, we have kept the demonstration which is in the Greek text, though not so short as Candalla's; because the way of finding the ratio which is compounded of the ratios of the sides, that is, of finding the ratio of the parallelograms, is shown in that, but not in Candalla's demonstration; whereby beginners may learn, in like cases, how to find the ratio which is compounded of two or more given ratios.

B

D

E F

H

G

From what has been said, it may be observed, that in any magnitudes whatever of the same kind A, B, C, D, &c. the ratio compounded of the ratios of the first to the second, of the second to the third, and so on to the last, is only a name or expression, by which the ratio which the first A has to the last D is signified, and by which at the same time the ratios of all the magnitudes A to B, B to C, C to D, from the first to the last, to one another; whether they be the same, or be not the same, are indicated; as in magnitudes which are continual proportionals A, B, C, D, &c. the duplicate ratio of the first to the second is only a name or ex

pression by which the ratio of the first A to the third C is signified, and by which, at the same time, is shown that there are two ratios of the magnitudes, from the first to the last, viz. of the first A to the second B, and of the second B to the third or last C, which are the same with one another; and the triplicate ratio of the first to the second is a name or expression by which the ratio of the first A to the fourth D is signified, and by which, at the same time, is shown that there are three ratios of the magnitudes, from the first to the last, viz. of the first A to the second B, and of B to the third C, and of C to the fourth or last D, which are all the same with one another; and so in the case of any other multiplicate ratios. And that this is the right explication of the meaning of these ratios is plain from the definitions of duplicate and triplicate ratio, in which Euclid makes use of the word λeyera, is said to be, or is called, which word, he, no doubt, made use of also in the definition of compound ratio, which Theon, or some other, has expunged from the Elements ; for the very same word is still retained in the wrong definition of compound ratio, which is now the 5th of the 6th book: but in the citation of these definitions it is sometimes retained, as in the demonstration of prop. 19, book 6, "the first is said to have, sxev Asysra, to the third the duplicate ratio," &c. which is wrong translated by Commandine and others, "has" instead of "is said to have:" and sometimes it is left out, as in the demonstration of prop. 33, of the eleventh book, in which we find "the first has, Exa, to the third the triplicate ratio;" but without doubt Exɛ, "has" in this place signifies the same as EXE Xɛyera, is said to have: so likewise in prop. 23, B. 6, we find this citation, "but the ratio of K to M is compounded, υyxeiras of the ratio of K to L, and the ratio of L to M," which is a shorter way of expressing the same thing, which, according to the definition, ought to have been expressed by ovɛa Ayera, is said to be compounded.

From these remarks, together with the proposition subjoined, to the 5th book, all that is found concerning compound ratio, either in the ancient or modern geometers, may be understood and explained.

PROP. XXIV. B. VI.

It seems that some unskilful editor has made up this demonstration as we now have it, out of two others; one of which may be made from the 2d prop. and the other from the 4th of this book: for after he has, from the 2d of this book, and composition and permutation, demonstrated, that the sides about the angle common to the two parallelograms are proportionals, he might have immediately concluded, that the sides about the other equal angles were proportionals, viz. from prop. 34, B. 1, and prop. 7, book 5. This he does not, but proceeds to show, that the triangles and parallelograms are equiangular; and in a tedious way by help of prop. 4, of this book, and the 22d of book 5, deduces the same conclusion: from which it is plain that this ill composed demonstration is not Euclid's: these superfluous things are now left out, and a more simple demonstration is given from the fourth prop. of this book, the same which is

in the translation from the Arabic, by help of the 2d prop. and composition: but in this the author neglects permutation, and does not show the parallelograms to be equiangular, as is proper to do for the sake of beginners.

PROP. XXV. B. VI.

It is very evident that the demonstration which Euclid had given of this proposition has been vitiated by some unskilful hand: for, after this editor had demonstrated that" as the rectilineal figure ABC is to the rectilineal KGH, so is the parallelogram BE to the parallelogram EF;" nothing more should have been added but this, "and the rectilineal figure ABC is equal to the parallelogram BE: therefore the rectilineal KGH is equal to the parallelogram EF," viz. from prop. 14, book 5. But betwixt these two sentences he has inserted this; "wherefore, by permutation, as the rectilineal figure ABC to the parallelogram BE, so is the rectilineal KGH to the parallelogram EF;" by which it is plain, he thought it was not evident to conclude, that the second of four proportionals is equal to the fourth from the equality of the first and third, which is a thing demonstrated in the 14th prop. of B. 5, as to conclude that the third is equal to the fourth, from the equality of the first and second, which is no where demonstrated in the elements as we now have them: but though this proposition, viz. the third of four proportionals is equal to the fourth, if the first be equal to the second, had been given in the Elements by Euclid, as very probably it was, yet he would not have made use of it in this place; because, as was said, the conclusion could have been immediately deduced without this superfluous step, by permutation: this we have shown at the greater length, both because it affords a certain proof of the vitiation of the text of Euclid; for the very same blunder is found twice in the Greek text of prop. 23, book 11, and twice in prop. 2, B. 12, and in the 5, 11, 12, and 18th of that book; in which places of book 12, except the last of them, it is rightly left out in the Oxford edition of Commandine's translation; and also that geometers may beware of making use of permutation in the like cases: for the moderns not unfrequently commit this mistake, and among others Commandine himself, in his commentary on prop. 5, book 3, p. 6, b. of Pappus Alexandrinus, and in other places the vulgar notion of proportionals has, it seems, preoccupied many so much, that they do not sufficiently understand the true nature of them.

Besides, though the rectilineal figure ABC, to which another is to be made similar, may be of any kind whatever; yet in the demonstration the Greek text has "triangle" instead of "rectilineal figure," which error is corrected in the above named Oxford edition.

PROP. XXVII. B. VI.

The second case of this has aλλws, otherwise, prefixed to it, as if it was a different demonstration, which probably has been done by some unskilful librarian. Dr. Gregory has rightly left it out: