Euclid, Elements
Thomas L. Heath, Sir Thomas Little Heath, Ed.

which seem to suggest this possibility are (1) that, as already stated, the question of the origin of the Elements is kept prominent, (2) that there is no mention of Democritus, whom Eudemus would not be likely to have ignored, while a follower of Plato would be likely enough to do him the injustice, following the example of Plato who was an opponent of Democritus, never once mentions him, and is said to have wished to burn all his writings¹, and (3) the allusion at the beginning to the “inspired Aristotle” (ὁ δαιμονιος Ἀριστοτέλης）², though this may easily have been inserted by Proclus in a quotation made by him from someone else. On the other hand there are considerations which suggest that Proclus himself was not the writer. (1) The style of the whole passage is not such as to point to him as the author. (2) If he wrote it, it is hardly conceivable that he would have passed over in silence the discovery of the analytical method, the invention of Plato to which he attached so much importance³.

There is nothing improbable in the conjecture that Proclus quoted the summary from a compendium of Eudemus' history made by some later writer: but as yet the question has not been definitely settled. All that is certain is that the early part of the summary must have been made up from scattered notices found in the great work of Eudemus.

Proclus refers to another work of Eudemus besides the history, viz. a book on The Angle (βιβλίον περὶ γωνίας）⁴. Tannery assumes that this must have been part of the history, and uses this assumption to confirm his idea that the history was arranged according to subjects, not according to chronological order⁵. The phraseology of Proclus however unmistakably suggests a separate work; and that the history was chronologically arranged seems to be clearly indicated by the remark of Simplicius that Eudemus “also counted Hippocrates among the more ancient writers” (ἐν τοῖς παλαιοτέροις）⁶.

The passage of Simplicius about the lunes of Hippocrates throws considerable light on the style of Eudemus' history. Eudemus wrote in a memorandum-like or summary manner (τὸν ὑπομνηματικὸν τρόπον τοῦ Εὐδήμου）⁷ when reproducing what he found in the ancient writers; sometimes it is clear that he left out altogether proofs or constructions of things by no means easy⁸.

Geminus.

The discussions about the date and birthplace of Geminus form a whole literature, as to which I must refer the reader to Manitius and Tittel⁹. Though the name looks like a Latin name (Gem[icaron]nus), Manitius