THE ‘THEOREM OF PYTHAGORAS’
145
les, the
2w~4
polygon
ectively)
ons are
1 The
regular
a com
angles)
iare, and
17).
ated by
tworthy
in. The
add the
iscovery.
D. 200),
tie verses
(p. 133).
perhaps
he occa-
em was.
i earlier
le form
meant,
sacrifice,
n which
aects the
•articular
questions
nuse was
while in
ifice was
p. 1094 b.
, i. 25.
the solution of the problem, ‘ given two figures, to apply
a third which shall be equal to the one and similar to
the other’, and he adds that this problem is unquestionably
finer than the theorem about the square on the hypotenuse.
But Athenaeus and Porphyry 1 (a.D. 233-304) connect the
sacrifice with the latter proposition ; so does Diogenes Laertius
in one place. We come lastly to Proclus, who is very cautious,
mentioning the story but declining to commit himself to
the view that it was Pythagoras or even any single person
who made the discovery:
‘ If we listen to those who wish to recount ancient history,
we may find some of them referring this theorem to Pytha
goras, and saying that he sacrificed an ox in honour of his
discovery. But for my part, while I admire those who first
observed the truth of this theorem, I marvel more at the
writer of the Elements, not only because he made it fast by a
most lucid demonstration, but because he compelled assent to
the still more general theorem by the irrefutable arguments of
science in the sixth book.’
It is possible that all these authorities may have built upon
the verses of Apollodorus ; but it is remarkable that, although
in the verses themselves the particular theorem is not speci
fied, there is practical unanimity in attributing to Pythagoras
the theorem of Eucl. I. 47. Even in Plutarch’s observations
expressing doubt about the particular occasion of the sacrifice
there is nothing to suggest that he had any hesitation in
accepting as discoveries of Pythagoras both the theorem of the
square on the hypotenuse and the problem of the application
of an area. Like Hankel, 2 therefore, I would not go so far as
to deny to Pythagoras the credit of the discovery of our pro
position ; nay, I like to believe that tradition is right, and that
it was really his.
True, the discovery is also claimed for India. 3 The work
relied on is the Apastamba-Sulba-Sutra, the date of which is
put at least as early as the fifth or fourth century b.c., while
it is remarked that the matter of it must have been much
1 Porphyry, Vit. Pyth. 36.
2 Hankel, Zur Geschichte der Math, in Alterthum und Mittelalter, p. 97.
3 Bürk in the Zeitschrift der morgenland. Gesellschaft, Iv, 1901,
pp. 543-91 ; Ivi, 1902, pp. 327-91.
1623
L