Scholarlink

The earliest extant Chinese translation of the Elements of Euclid was published in 1607 under the title Ji he yuan ben 幾何原本; it resulted from the cooperation of two scholars: the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1552–1610, Chinese name Li Madou 利瑪竇) and the Chinese literatus and statesman Xu Guangqi 徐光啟 (1562–1633). Their translation was based on the Latin edition of the Elements published in 1574 by Christoph (or Christopher) Clavius (1538–1612) that Ricci studied under Clavius’ direction in Collegio Romano (Roman College) prior to his travel to China. The author argues that modern historians of science did not pay sufficient attention to the logical structure of the Chinese translation presumably assuming that it was identical with that of the Latin original and provides an analysis of Ricci’s and Xu’s translation of one proposition in which the proof by contradiction was originally used; he shows that its original logical structure was radically changed and that this change made the resulting Chinese translation of this proposition logically invalid. The author also provides the list of the other propositions in which the proofs by contradiction were mistranslated by Ricci and Xu.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

On Interpretation of Euclid’s Logic in the Translation of the Elements by Matteo Ricci and Xu Guangqi

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2026年

查看全文
  • Alexei Volkov

摘要

The earliest extant Chinese translation of the Elements of Euclid was published in 1607 under the title Ji he yuan ben 幾何原本; it resulted from the cooperation of two scholars: the Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci (1552–1610, Chinese name Li Madou 利瑪竇) and the Chinese literatus and statesman Xu Guangqi 徐光啟 (1562–1633). Their translation was based on the Latin edition of the Elements published in 1574 by Christoph (or Christopher) Clavius (1538–1612) that Ricci studied under Clavius’ direction in Collegio Romano (Roman College) prior to his travel to China. The author argues that modern historians of science did not pay sufficient attention to the logical structure of the Chinese translation presumably assuming that it was identical with that of the Latin original and provides an analysis of Ricci’s and Xu’s translation of one proposition in which the proof by contradiction was originally used; he shows that its original logical structure was radically changed and that this change made the resulting Chinese translation of this proposition logically invalid. The author also provides the list of the other propositions in which the proofs by contradiction were mistranslated by Ricci and Xu.