RELATION OF WORKS
453
Tannery includes in his edition three fragments under the
heading ‘ Diophantus Pseudepigraphus ’. The first, which is
not ‘ from the Arithmetic of Diophantus ’ as its heading states,
is worth notice as containing some particulars of one of ‘ two
methods of finding the square root of any square number ’;
we are told to begin by writing the number ‘ according to
the arrangement of the Indian method ’, i.e. in the Indian
numerical notation which reached us through the Arabs. The
second fragment is the work edited by C. Henry in 1879 as
Opusculum de multiplicatione et divisione sexagesimalibus
Diophanto vel Pappo attribuendum. The third, beginning
with ALo(f)dvTov eirLTreSo/xerpiKd is a Byzantine compilation
from later reproductions of the yecoperpovyeva and arepeo-
ptTpovpeva of Heron. Not one of the three fragments has
anything to do with Diophantus.
Commentators from Hypatia downwards.
The first commentator on Diophantus of whom we hear
is Hypatia, the daughter of Theon of Alexandria; she
was murdered by Christian fanatics in a.d. 415. I have
already mentioned the attractive hypothesis of Tannery that
Hypatia’s commentary extended only to our six Books, and
that this accounts for their survival when the rest were lost.
It is possible that the remarks of Psellus (eleventh century) at
the beginning of his letter about Diophantus, Anatolius and
the Egyptian method of arithmetical reckoning were taken
from Hypatia’s commentary.
Georgius Pachymeres (1240 to about 1310) wrote in Greek
a paraphrase of at least a portion of Diophantus. Sections
25-44 of this commentary relating to Book I, Def. 1 to Prop.
11, survive. Maximus Planudes (about 1260-1310) also wrote
a systematic commentary on Books I, II. Arabian commen
tators were Abu’l Wafa al-Buzjanl (940-98), Qusta b. Luqa
al-Ba'labakki (d. about 912) and probably Ibn al-Haitham
(about 965-1039).
Translations and editions.
To Regiomontanus belongs the credit of being the first to
call attention to the work of Diophantus as being extant in
